W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2012

Re: How to describe a page elsewhere?

From: Jean Delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:27:45 +0200
Message-Id: <699F8C46-808B-48BA-967A-CDDBAC5D83DF@gmail.com>
Cc: "lrmi@googlegroups.com" <lrmi@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk>
To: Michael Jay <michael@edusystemics.com>
Hello all,
Annotating external web ressources or non web ressources based on Schema.org would be very useful and enable great new services for search engines. 
A question : does google or bing would use those annotations even if they are not embedded in the ressources itself?

thanks 
Jean

+33 6 01 22 48 55, delahousse.jean@gmail.com, skype: jean.delahousse
@jdelahousse, http://jean-delahousse.info 

Le 24 avr. 2012 à 21:24, Michael Jay <michael@edusystemics.com> a écrit :

> Just chiming in with a new use case...
> 
> "...the first approach has some advantages since it acknowledges that the page being marked up is in itself a useful resource".
> 
> We are working with a wide variety of publishers of which several have no web-based resources or are looking to tag some of their non-web-based resources. I know that this is not the core audience for Schema.org, however, it still represents how many instructional resources are instantiated and distributed. If we ask these publishers create a reference page for each component of each resource I'm pretty certain that these will not be useful resources but simply be a way for an educator to identify what part of a larger resource will be useful in addressing their instructional needs. This strategy lets us engage more mainstream publishers as they are building their digital strategies and transfer their new found LRMI knowledge to their digital offerings.
> 
> In this case, is the latter of the two options better than the first?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the community wisdom!
> 
> - Michael
> 
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 6:41:10 AM UTC-7, Phil Barker wrote:
> Hello all,
> I'm working on some examples for marking up educational/learning resources using schema.org (including the proposed LRMI properties).  There are quite a lot of catalogue-like services which provide some of the best descriptions for learning resources without actually providing the resource itself. They are simply there to help people find learning resources held elsewhere. A fairly typical example would be the National Science Digital Library, with pages like http://nsdl.org/search/resource/2200/20110414163807295T
> 
> I can see two options for marking up these pages, 1. add schema.org microdata to describe the webpage as it is and say that it refers to something elsewhere which is a learning resource with certain characteristics, or 2. just add microdata to describe the learning resource.  I'ld be interested in any advice/opinions/speculation on which might be the best approach, especially if you think there are any pitfalls to either approach.
> 
> For the NSDL example, the first approach would give a description along the lines of:
> 
> Item 
>    Type: http://schema.org/webpage
>    url = http://nsdl.org/search/resource/2200/20110414163807295T 
>    provider = Item( 1 ) 
>    publisher = Item( 1 ) 
>    creator = Item( 1 ) 
>    about = Item( 2 ) 
> 
> Item 1 
>    Type: http://www.pjjk.net/organization
>    name = National Science Digital Library 
>    url = http://nsdl.org/ 
> 
> Item 2 
>    Type: http://schema.org/creativework
>    name = Learning About Ratios: A Sandwich Study 
>    url = http://www.cteonline.org/portal/default/Resources/Viewer/ResourceViewer?action=2&resid=227315 
>    learningresourcetype = Instructional Material 
>    creator = ...
>    about = ...
>    ...etc
> 
> 
> The second would mark up the page at http://nsdl.org/search/resource/2200/20110414163807295T to produce:
> 
> Item
>    Type: http://schema.org/creativework
>    name = Learning About Ratios: A Sandwich Study 
>    url = http://www.cteonline.org/portal/default/Resources/Viewer/ResourceViewer?action=2&resid=227315 
>    learningresourcetype = Instructional Material 
>    creator = ...
>    about = ...
>    ....etc
> 
> 
> As I see it,  the first approach has some advantages since it acknowledges that the page being marked up is in itself a useful resource, and allows us to say some fairly sophisticated things like the description on the NSDL page and the "learning about ratios" resource being available from different people (maybe under different licenses etc.) However it might be over-sophisticated and the big search engines might just ignore the information about the learning resource. Incidentally, if this approach does have any merit, is "about" the right relationship between the two resources?
> 
> The second approach has the advantage of being straightforward, but I wonder whether search engines might not deprecate in some way pages that claim a URL other than their own?
> 
> 
> Any comments welcome, thanks.
> 
> Phil
> -- 
> <http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>
> 
> 
> Heriot-Watt University is the Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2012. 
> 
> We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see 
> 
> http://www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders
> 
> for further information and how to apply. 
> 
> Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278. 
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 11:28:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:02 GMT