W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Help testing improvements to schema.org site infrastructure

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:00:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnFE+wbRj9QMr659mHY-8mDnk8hk=rBJTgcPPHkw_tfKYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Looks like we lost some examples on http://sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/Person,
http://schema.org/Person has more examples. Also, there is an example about
"George Bush" on the newer version which is not present on the
http://schema.org/Person. Is this due to the fact that sdo-rjwtest1 is
running on the release candidate? Having it running on the same schema as
the official site might ease the review process (to make sure they
effectively look the same).

Also, so others don't trip on this: I noticed the test site has a greyish
background on the term pages, while the production site is white, but that
seems to be intentional and due to the "testsite" class in the body tag.

Steph.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> (+TimBL, who was asking for this)
>
> I should also add: another piece of infrastructural cleanup is that
> the schema.org site infrastructure will soon understand HTTP HEAD
> requests. Again thanks to Richard Wallis. As below re parsers, for now
> this is only queued up for review (on the webschemas.org staging
> site). HTTP enthusiasts may care to look at
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/256#issuecomment-206407672
> for more details; others may not be very interested.  Review / bug
> reports welcomed, as ever.
>
> Dan
>
> On 7 April 2016 at 13:41, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Richard Wallis has been busy integrating improved parsers into the
> > schema.org site codebase. We think it is ready to go, and that you
> > should not see anything different from the outside, but there is
> > always the possibility that the new parsers (for RDFa, JSON-LD etc
> > schema definitions) interpret our files differently from the older
> > ones. So we'd appreciate a few more sanity checks before integrating
> > these changes into the live schema.org.
> >
> > You can see a test version of this work at
> http://sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/
> > (also http://bib.sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/
> > http://auto.sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/ etc.).
> >
> > Historically we have defined our schemas using a somewhat unusual file
> > format based on HTML+RDFa1.1, and we have parsed it with a custom (and
> > non-compliant) pseudo-RDFa format. These changes integrate the
> > opensource rdflib parsers which implement RDFa 1.1 much more
> > accurately, as well as opening up the possibility that we might use
> > other notations like JSON-LD for schemas (including extensions) in
> > futre. For now we won't rush into those discussions, but we do want to
> > make sure we haven't broken anything, so thanks for any feedback!
> > Please have a click around and let us know if anything seems
> > suspiciously different to the normal site. The site is running on the
> > materials being put together for our next release candidate so there
> > may be rough edges in the actual content, but that's another matter.
> > We are mainly here looking to sanity check our belief that the new
> > parser is reading the definitions from the data/schema.rdfa file
> > properly....
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 14:02:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 7 April 2016 14:02:19 UTC