On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> > This is what the example would look like if I'm understanding this right:
> >
> > http://schema.org/LocalBusiness";>
> > (Entity A) Beachwalk Beachwear &
> > Giftware
> > A superb collection of fine gifts and
> > clothing
> > to a
On 17 March 2014 21:15, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> We discussed this (and the -inv suggestion) at schema.org again, and the
>> consensus there was that we'd like to have the search engines proceed
>> with accepting an experimental/proposed 'inverse itemprop
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> We discussed this (and the -inv suggestion) at schema.org again, and the
> consensus there was that we'd like to have the search engines proceed
> with accepting an experimental/proposed 'inverse itemprop' attribute,
> rather than work around its abs
Hi Ian, HTML people,
On 31 January 2014 23:45, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> We'd (schema.org 'we') like to make a public proposal to update
>> Microdata with a syntax for expressing inverse properties/relationships.
>> [...]
>>
>> Here's an example with 'con
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> We'd (schema.org 'we') like to make a public proposal to update
> Microdata with a syntax for expressing inverse properties/relationships.
> [...]
>
> Here's an example with 'containedIn'. The idea is that we want to
> express that the LocalBusiness
Hi folks. I'm relaying this from the schema.org collaboration,
probably the main user of HTML's Microdata mechanism.
We'd (schema.org 'we') like to make a public proposal to update
Microdata with a syntax for expressing inverse
properties/relationships. FWIW other notations that schema.org
support
