Microdata vocabularies are usually language-independent.
Take for example the vocabulary schema.org: a
Movie can have the property
alternativeHeadline. The expected type is Text, and it’s defined as: "A secondary title of the CreativeWork.". It doesn’t matter at all if this secondary title is in English, German, or Sindarin.
itemprop values self defined or some vocabulary must be defined first?
You don’t have to use a "defined" vocabulary at all. But then don’t expect your Microdata annotations to be of any use to someone else. So typically you’ll want to use defined (well-known) vocabularies. See http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/#selecting-names-when-defining-vocabularies.
i want to use translations form english to my language. So for example 'Movie' is translated 'Film'...So it is absolutely ok to use itemprop values on my language?
http://schema.org/Movie as example. If you want to annotate your content with the schema.org vocabulary, and you have a movie/film, you have to use exactly this URL. It’s an identifier, not a description itself (it could have been named
http://schema.org/78161, too. They only used English terms in the URL because of convenience).
If you’d use
http://schema.org/Film (don’t use this!), it wouldn’t have the same meaning. Also, you should never mint new URLs which you don’t control yourself.
So you should use your own domain, e.g.
http://yourdomain.example.org/Film. You can use this, yes. But then you have your own vocabulary, which has nothing to do with schema.org.
All this is similar to HTML element names. For example, you use the
address element in every language, not only on English pages. It wouldn’t make sense (and it isn’t allowed) to translate
<address></address> element to