W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:39:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4DED6533.4080202@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/6/11 2:53 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
> All,
> I can agree, in principle, that it may be good that schema.org will contribute to the generation of more structured data, albeit not linked, at least in the beginning.
> Nevertheless, they could have at least published their vocabulary in RDFS, as M. Hausenblas and his group at DERI brilliantly did, if only to show support for the standard... but this is besides the point.
> My major concern is that this seems to be not only a matter of syntax, as it is unclear whether their crawlers will *parse* RDFa at all for e.g., schema.rdf.org.
>  From the FAQ, they seem to indicate that they *may* do so if RDFa uptake increases (very vague as to what a satisfactory level of adoption is).
>
> So, can someone clarify, if possible, whether if I publish a page using RDFa and schema.rdf.org syntax, it will be properly parsed and indexed in any of those search engines?
Daniel,

Simple answer: No.

In short, my experience has always been that their order of preference 
is as follows:

1. Microformats
2. Microdata
3. RDFa (specifically GoodRelations).

Basically, GoodRelations is what's keeping RDFa on the list and on their 
strategic radars. Again, I comment from experience rather than speculation.

> Cheers
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 23:39:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:33 UTC