Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
StructuredValue description is confusing #109
"If you are messing around near StructuredValue, it would probably be worthwhile to fix up the comment on StructuredValue, which says that structured values are strings, but all the subclasses of StructuredValue are not strings." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Aug/0205.html
http://schema.org/StructuredValue "Structured values are strings—for example, addresses—that have certain constraints on their structure."
More specific Types
Moving my comment in here from #395 pull request. It was:
""""Structured values are values that consist of sub-elements and thus have some kind of internal structure."
Thanks for making an exact suggestion. We haven't so far used the term "element" heavily; it sounds rather XML-oriented.
Maybe something like "Structured values are used when the value of a property has more complex structure than simply being a textual value or a reference to another thing."?"""
I'm still confused by this to be honest.
Its a Parent Type for holding ANY structured value.
Like my old high school locker combination.
Then proceed to describe the structure.
This is a quick hack and not very applicable, but should help you
In Schema.org we use StructuredValue as a parent Type for all those
Just don't expect the Search Enginges to fully understand your
Use it when you can breakdown a value itself into ...into parts, etc. like