W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > October 2019

Re: SDTT required attributes - who decides ?

From: Hugo Scott <hugo@hugoscott.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:46:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOJ1cMTMS=r0AcFfJZM-u6eLKFmzZkboet81ViqbxjA18_+GNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Henry <Matthew.Henry@usa.childcareaware.org>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Hi there
It's true, as Phil Barker pointed out (
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2019Aug/0004.html) when
I suggested having an "awardedBy" attribute for
"EducationalOccupationalCredential",
this is in no way proof that the person really has this qualification and,
as you say, it is actually quite difficult to prove anything just with
structured data. The job of structured data is limited to communicating
information to systems in an expected format.
Myself and friends have been discussing this point quite a lot recently as
it is becoming more and more important to somehow 'prove' your credentials
to get a good E-A-T evaluation with Google, especially in the fields of
Finance and Health.
One possibility could have been to link to the person's Alumni profile page
on the site of the awarding university etc, but this is often private
information (at least it is here in France). The STI however do have this :
https://sti2-alumni.at/members. And some organizations have a searchable
database of certification holders. So in the end it seems that all you can
do is include as many "sameAs" urls as possible in the Person markup - urls
linking to pages (that the person doesn't control) that show that the
person has been validated in some way in that field.
Cheers

Hugo Scott
*Sustainable SEO*
*Audits SEO technique*
*Optimisation** SEO Wordpress*
https://hugoscott.com
(+33) 06 51 19 09 41

<https://www.linkedin.com/in/hugo-scott-474019153/> LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/hugo-scott-474019153/> -
<https://www.malt.fr/profile/hugoscott> Malt
<https://www.malt.fr/profile/hugoscott>

<https://www.malt.fr/profile/hugoscott>



On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 23:14, Matthew Henry <
Matthew.Henry@usa.childcareaware.org> wrote:

> Omar and Dan, very, very helpful information!
>
>
>
> Question:
>
>
>
> Take for example the Fact Check structure in the search-gallery link
> <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/factcheck>. From
> the dictionary analogy, there would still be no proof or implied
> endorsement by Google that “Fact check by Example.com” is itself a valid
> fact check. In the same way, technically, Webster or American Heritage’s
> endorsement of a word and its meaning doesn’t indicate how the word is used
> (think urban slang), whether the word is used or even if it’s English (in
> the case of an English language dictionary). Users of Google however, don’t
> view things this way, and I’d argue that users of dictionaries don’t view
> things this way either. If I go to https://www.sti-innsbruck.at/ and see
> “Approved by the Department of Austrian Higher Education” and that came
> from information STI put on their web site using structured data, how valid
> is that claim? Google attempts to answer that in the “Guidelines” offered
> for Factcheck. How does Google decide these guidelines?
>
>
>
> For us, the schema around “valid child care provider” is an important
> dictionary element. How would we work together at defining guidelines for
> that element?
>
>
>
> And, I apologize, I’ve been following this schema.org project for a few
> short months, if I’m asking something that makes no sense or I should ask
> elsewhere, let me know.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew Henry*
> Chief Information Officer
>
> *Child Care Aware® of America*
> 1515 N. Courthouse Rd – 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA 22201
> Phone: (571) 303-2305 Ext. 146 | Fax: (703) 341-4101
> usa.childcareaware.org | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/ChildCareAware> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/ChildCareAware>
>
> [image: Register Now]
> <https://childcareaware.sigstr.net/uc/5c98eef085ef4d010e9e2663/c_5da5f29899aeb7004ba68bbe/b_5da5f31699aeb7004ba68bc0?recipient=cHVibGljLXNjaGVtYW9yZ0B3My5vcmc=>
> [image: Powered by Sigstr]
> <https://childcareaware.sigstr.net/uc/5c98eef085ef4d010e9e2663/watermark?recipient=cHVibGljLXNjaGVtYW9yZ0B3My5vcmc=>
>
> *From:* Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2019 10:31 AM
> *To:* Omar Holzknecht <omar.holzknecht@sti2.at>
> *Cc:* schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: SDTT required attributes - who decides ?
>
>
>
> Yes - that's how things are divided up. You can think of Schema.org as a
> dictionary. Dictionaries don't tell you what to say, they just document the
> meaning of terms. It is natural for organizations (like Google) who make
> use of schema.org to document the specific combinations of terms that
> they make special use of, including whatever notions of "required" or
> "recommended" make sense for those applications. You can find a list of
> Google structured data -related features at
> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/search-gallery - most of
> which are based on Schema.org.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 15:12, Omar Holzknecht <omar.holzknecht@sti2.at>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The requirements for certain Types and Properties in the Structured Data
> Testing Tool of Google are defined by Google themselves based on the
> requirements of their applications and use-cases (e.g. rich snippets in
> search results, actions within emails).
>
> You can learn more about Google Guidelines for certain Types here:
>
> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/sd-policies
>
>
> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/article#type_definitions
>
> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/article#type_definitions
>
> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/article#type_definitions
>
> Sinc.
>
> Omar
>
> On 22.10.19 15:45, Hugo Scott wrote:
>
> Hi there
>
> I was wondering who decides which attributes are "Required" and
> "Recommended" in Google's Structured Data tool - I'm guessing it's Google,
> right? Or maybe not. And what is it based on ?
>
> Have a great day
>
> Hugo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hugo Scott
> *Sustainable SEO*
>
> *Audits SEO technique*
>
>
> *Optimisation SEO Wordpress *https://hugoscott.com
>
> (+33) 06 51 19 09 41
>
>
>
> --
>
> Omar J. Holzknecht, MSc
>
> Semantic Technology Institute
>
> University of Innsbruck
>
>
>
> ICT - Technologie Park Innsbruck
>
> Technikerstrasse, 21a
>
> 6020 Innsbruck
>
> Austria
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 08:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:49 UTC