- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:53:21 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/6/11 6:32 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > I think that technically, the only thing they want to avoid is people using 2 - 3 different markups for *the same* content, but the way they are currently describe it may make site-owners think that when they want to please Google, they should leave their fingers off RDFa. > > So the crucial thing is to convince them to clearly articulate that they accept the use of additional markup in RDFa, so that quick-and-dirty SEO coders do not avoid RDFa for unfounded fears. Truth of this matter is SEO coders go wherever the dominant search engine(s) tell them to go. In addition, they were always going to find RDFa a stretch to adopt. Remember, this is the black hat SEO crowd, they are kings of "quick and dirty" . For you, I really think it boils down to stuff you started doing a while back i.e., producing Microdata based recipes alongside your RDFa, Turtle, RDF/XML variants. As I stated earlier, GoodRelations is basically what keeps the RDFa promises alive amongst these search engine vendors. In addition, as I stated in an earlier post, the beauty of GoodRelations isn't beholden to any data representation syntax, this is about a sound conceptual model for vendors, their offers, and associated products & services, above all else. Kingsley > Best > > Martin > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote: > >> Right, I thought as much. Which makes the point of schema.rdf.org vocabulary support by the parsers even more critical to encourage its adoption... >> >> D >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:19 - 06/06/11, Patrick Logan wrote: >> >>> Google has advised against "mixing markup" because it "confuses their >>> parsers". I have not seen similar advice from the other two vendors. >>> >>> (Which strikes me as odd, but nevertheless...) >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Schwabe<dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote: >>>> Martin, >>>> I can see the point with Good Relations - they acknowledge they will continue supporting RDFa *with the vocabularies they already support*. >>>> My question then was about RDFa support for *schema.rdf.org* vocabulary. >>>> Also, Gio's question is applicable - can one have page markups with both RDFa and schema.org? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> D >>>> > > -- 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 23:53:45 UTC