W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > May 2009

Re: fw: Google starts supporting RDFa -- 'rich snippets'

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:21:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4A0B0F93.2030408@mondeca.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org
Hi all

Agreed with Dan and all others saying we have to welcome Google's move. 
But nevertheless, I take the risk to include myself in the 1000 defined 
below ... :-)
I suppose pages such as [1] with indications for webmasters are likely 
to be more read by webmasters than RDFa specs themselves or linked data 
best pratcices documents. So, is this page making correctly the case for 
linked data? For structured semantic data, yes, and nevermind the 
But for linked data, well, not much. Linked data ate about 
relationships, and unfortunately the only example given in this page 
defining a relation between resources using "about" is "for the 
structured data geeks out there" ... and can be misleading for people 
not aware of what LOD is about.

<div xmlns:v="http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/" typeof="v:Person">
   <span property="v:name">John Smith</span>
   <span rel="v:affiliation">
      <span about="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acme_Corporation" property="v:name">ACME</span>

So John Smith is affiliated to a wikipedia page. Whoever has the ear of 
Google folks behind this could simply suggest to replace in this example 
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acme_Corporation"  by 
"http://dbpedia.org/resource/Acme_Corporation", explaining quickly the 
Of course one can wonder if a fictional guy is better off being 
affiliated with a fictional corporation than with a real web page.

That said, to follow-up with Dan's suggestion, would it be really 
difficult e.g., for LOD html pages such as 
http://dbpedia.org/page/Acme_Corporation to be RDFa-ized?


[1] http://google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=146646
> On 13/5/09 15:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> I desperately hope that you can see the Google is providing a huge
>> opportunity to showcase Linked Data meme value. Again, so what -- if
>> they don't use existing vocabularies? What matters is that they are
>> using RDFa to produce structured data, and that is simply huge!!!
> Yeah, to be blunt, the last thing this situation needs right now is 
> having 1000 semantic web pedants descend, complaining that they're not 
> doing x, y or z right, that they don't "get it", that they're 
> copycatting yahoo, or whatever. This won't help anyone and would be 
> severely counterproductive.
> What would help right now is having real and sizable sites expose lots 
> of RDFa HTML pages using FOAF, DOAP, SIOC, SKOS, CC etc. If anyone has 
> such information and is exposing it only in RDF/XML and not RDFa, I'd 
> suggest looking to make that change...
> Dan


*Bernard Vatant
*Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
*3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
Blog:    Lešons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:21:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:56 UTC