Re: Discussion topic: How to improve understanding and application of schema.org

Hi Michael,
Yes, I would agree with your assertion that general understanding of
schema.org could definitely be improved. One tool that would help SEO
practitioners would be documentation or even a one pager in non-technical
language describing in lay terms the need and importance of this kind of
mark up with a case study of sorts.

Often in companies both large and small there is an understanding that
these kinds of technical SEO enhancements need to be made, but selling
those in with leadership is difficult - not for lack of intellectual
capability or interest at those levels, but simply because of time and
competing priorities. Having a document with visuals, like a sell sheet of
sorts, quantifying how schema.org can help drive growth in a digital space
would be a great addition.

Often volumes of information are written for those who are implementing or
architecting these kinds of initiatives (the nuts and bolts or how-to
articles), but the sell-in step to get support in large organizations goes
unsupported.

This lack of literature/documented support from the organization who owns
these ideas or initiatives and is the definitive expert leaves those who
understand the need left searching for articles written by others for
support of its importance.

My own past personal struggles with selling in SEO and the need to have
expert and tangible documentation to garner the support needed is the
impetus for this vein of thinking.

Hope this adds something to the conversation.

Thanks.
Russell

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 1:30 AM Michael Andrews <nextcontent01@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I’m inviting discussion about how to improve understanding and application
> of schema.org more widely.  This thread is a fork of a long comment I
> made earlier, which some felt deserved a dedicated thread.  I won’t
> repeat all the points I made before, but you can read them here:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2018Jun/0102.html
>
>
> Question 1: Can we improve general understanding of how the vocabulary
> works, especially for those who are not active on a weekly basis shaping
> its decisions?  Sometimes people find certain terminology confusing, and
> not self-describing.  Coverage of different entity types can vary, with
> some detailed and well-documented, and others not detailed or
> well-documented.  Can the current terminology be improved or rationalized
> in a non-disruptive way?  Should nomenclature used in creating terms or
> definitions be standardized, or defined by a common dictionary of
> definitions?  Can the documentation be improved to reduce ambiguities,
> provide better guidance in the absence of examples, provide best practices
> for quality, and help new users understand how pieces fit together to
> support novel applications?
>
>
> Question 2: Can we improve cross-domain application of schema.org, so
> that different types of entities can be compared?  Much of schema.org’s
> development has focused on the needs of sector- or domain-specific data
> users.  But many potential applications (voice interaction, learning,
> games) can take advantage of schema.org to compare shared properties of
> different kinds of entities, such as the speed of a machine verse an animal.
> To do that requires that properties be comparable across different entity
> types, which is sometimes difficult to take advantage of when properties
> are closely tied to specific entity types.    How can entity and property
> coverage or usage be improved to benefit general and comparative
> information description and application?
>
>
> I welcome your feedback on these questions.  Please feel to challenge any
> assumptions I’ve asserted that you don’t feel aren't accurate.
>
> --
Russell Pruitt
763.200.1418
russell.pruitt@gmail.com
@koffephilosophy <http://twitter.com/koffephilosophy>

The creative thinker is flexible and adaptable and prepared to rearrange
his thinking.
- A.J. Cropley
-- 
Russell Pruitt
763.200.1418
russell.pruitt@gmail.com
@koffephilosophy <http://twitter.com/koffephilosophy>

The creative thinker is flexible and adaptable and prepared to rearrange
his thinking.
- A.J. Cropley