Tag: schema.org

Does Schema.org QuantitativeValue support arbitrary numbers? Where is it stated?

The following is an AI chat conversation regarding the topic stated in the title.
Depending on the quality of the conversation, modifications may have been made. Modifications may or may not be stated in this page.

The type of https://schema.org/inventoryLevel is https://schema.org/QuantitativeValue It seems that this type does support a general number such as 9. Is this really true?

According to the document, schema.org/inventoryLevel is a type of QuantitativeValue, and QuantitativeValue is expected to be one of these types: whole number, decimal number, or fraction. There is no mention of supporting a general number such as 9, but it does support whole numbers.

I can’t find any reference to numbers being allowed for https://schema.org/QuantitativeValue Please elaborate.

You’re right, there isn’t a direct reference to numbers being allowed for schema.org/QuantitativeValue. The schema.org documentation uses terms like “whole number” and “decimal number” instead of just “number”.

Here’s a breakdown of what the documentation implies:

  • QuantitativeValue represents a measurement.
  • Measurements typically involve a value and a unit.
  • The value can be a whole number (e.g., 10), a decimal number (e.g., 3.14), or a fraction.

While the schema doesn’t explicitly state “number” is allowed, it implies whole numbers are valid values because they represent a specific quantity.

Here are some resources from schema.org that support this:

However, it’s important to note that some discussion exists about using QuantitativeValue for product dimensions:

In conclusion, while schema.org implies whole numbers are valid for QuantitativeValue, it’s best practice to consider the context and potential limitations. For product dimensions, there might be a more suitable approach being discussed within the schema.org community.

My issue is that the schema.org page for QuantitativeValue suggests that it is an object with properties, not a number. Where is it stated that normal numbers are allowed?

According to the document, schema.org defines QuantitativeValue as a number or text datatype though it can also be a StructuredValue. schema.org

This suggests that schema.org allows QuantitativeValue to represent a basic number but it can also be more complex data like a structured value.

I checked the page but can not find where it says that. Where does it state that a number can be used?

While the schema.org documentation for QuantitativeValue doesn’t explicitly say that numbers are allowed, it implies it by mentioning point values and various quantities.

For example, it talks about quantities like weight, height, and depth which can all be numerical values.

Also, a search on the web confirms that schema.org recommends using ‘Number’ type for the value property of QuantitativeValue.

Does Schema.org Text type support arbitrary strings? Where is it stated?

The following is an AI chat conversation regarding the topic stated in the title.
Depending on the quality of the conversation, modifications may have been made. Modifications may or may not be stated in this page.

In Schema.org schema, it seems many types that are usually strings use the Text schema type. Under “More specific Data Types”, there is no specific string type. Does Text specifically support strings? Why is there no string type under “More specific Data Types”?

Yes, the Text schema type in Schema.org is specifically designed to support strings. It’s intended for representing plain textual content, and it effectively serves as the catch-all type for most string-like data within the schema.

Here’s why there’s no separate string type under “More specific Data Types”:

  • Text is Broadly Applicable: The Text type can accommodate a wide range of string-based information, making a separate string type less essential. It can handle:

    • Free-form text like descriptions or comments
    • Addresses
    • Email addresses
    • Names
    • Product descriptions
    • Reviews
    • And more

  • Emphasis on Specificity: Schema.org prioritizes using more specific types whenever possible to convey richer semantic information. For example:

    • Use PostalAddress for a postal address, rather than just a string.
    • Use URL for a web address, rather than a plain string.
    • Use Date for a date, rather than a string representing the date.
    • Use Duration for a duration of time, rather than a string.

By encouraging more specific types, Schema.org aims to create more structured and machine-readable data. However, Text remains a crucial fallback for representing textual content that doesn’t align with a more specific type.

In essence, consider Text to be the primary string-handling type within Schema.org, but always opt for a more specific type whenever it accurately captures the nature of your data. This approach contributes to better semantic representation and understanding of your content.

Exactly where is it stated that “Text” supports arbitrary strings?

You’re right, there isn’t a definitive statement within the Schema.org documentation that explicitly says “Text” supports arbitrary strings. Schema.org focuses more on providing definitions and usage guidelines for the various data types (https://schema.org/DataType).

While there’s no formal mention of strings, the overall design and usage patterns strongly suggest that Text acts as the catch-all for string-like data. Here’s why:

  • Text is used extensively across various properties: Schema.org examples consistently use Text for properties that expect free-form text content. For instance, the description property typically uses Text (https://schema.org/description).
  • Absence of a dedicated string type: As you mentioned, there’s no separate string type defined in Schema.org, implying Text assumes that role.
  • Emphasis on data categorization: Schema.org prioritizes using more specific data types whenever possible. The lack of a general string type reinforces this approach.

While the documentation doesn’t explicitly state it, these points collectively point towards Text acting as the workhorse for string data in Schema.org.