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

Re: Schema.org Required Properties (Was "Re: Issue with rich snippets tools testing tool & businessEvent")

From: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:59:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4F3D6E18.1000505@gmail.com>
To: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>
CC: Mark Keller <webnetworkz@gmail.com>, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>, public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi,

Is there any official position from Google / Yahoo / Microsoft about 
what we should do in this case ? (or a least what is the current search 
engine parser behaviour)

Thanks a lot,
   Jocelyn

Le 25/01/12 05:35, Jocelyn Fournier a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Another question :
> Let's say I'm adding markup on the collection page, what's happening if
> I have :
>
> On pageA (the collection page) :
>
>
> <div itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BusinessEvent">
> <a itemprop="url" href="pageB">My great page</a>
> <time itemprop="startDate" datetime="2012-06-14 00:00:00">14/06/2012</time>
> </div>
>
> On pageB (the target page with the full markup) :
>
> <div itemprop="about" itemscope="itemscope"
> itemtype="http://schema.org/BusinessEvent">
> <div itemprop="name">My great page</div>
> <time itemprop="startDate" datetime="2012-06-20 00:00:00">20/06/2012</time>
> [...]
> </div>
>
> ie. different informations provided on the collection and target page,
> for the same event.
>
> If the search engine is able to say there's an error somewhere in this
> case, then it should be able to extract the data from the target page to
> fill the missing itemprop on the collection page. If it's not able to do
> the check, it's annoying :)
>
>  From my point of view, to try to reduce errors during markup (which is
> a problem Google try to fight), we should avoid (forbid ?) any other
> markup in an itemtype if itemprop="url" is used.
>
>
> Jocelyn
>
>
> Le 24/01/12 22:11, Mark Keller a écrit :
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> I definitely agree that the amount of hidden properties should be
>> minimized as best practice.
>>
>> "
>>
>> * *More is better, except for hidden text.* In general, the more
>> content you mark up, the better. However, as a general rule, you
>> should mark up only the content that is visible to people who visit
>> the web page and not content in hidden div's or other hidden page
>> elements.
>>
>> "
>> In hindsight of my own crawling and research, I can also see how the
>> requirements of this type of schema, could lead to better validation, in
>> this verified form of information.
>>
>> Considering that I will probably run into this a lot myself with Events,
>> I would definitely like closure on the topic. I do not want to redesign
>> my entire layout, nor include hidden tags that are in general frowned
>> upon.
>>
>> The main goal of search, always should be in favor of the users first. I
>> believe they will do their best to align the syntax of Schema.org with
>> the most relevant, valid, and verified way of consuming structured data.
>> From there parsing, evaluating, and ultimately displaying it in a
>> relevant manner for the end users, is up to them.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mark Keller
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de
>> <mailto:giurca@tu-cottbus.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark and Jocelyn,
>>
>> On 1/23/2012 6:34 PM, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> Le 23/01/12 09:01, Mark Keller a écrit :
>>>> Hello Jocelyn,
>>>>
>>>> (Looping in the group to our conversation)
>>>>
>>>> I definitely see what you are saying about it being a link to the
>>>> page
>>>> with the structured markup.
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to markup the url for an itemtype of Event, you
>>>> will
>>>> most likely need to include the name, url, and startDate at a
>>>> minimum.
>>>
>>> Actually I was considering (perhaps wrongly) if a url property is
>>> used, whatever the itemtype, there shouldn't be any other markup
>>> since it should be described on the target page (as long as it's
>>> on the same domain). Otherwise it's just redundant informations;
>>> and in my case since I doesn't display the startDate, it would
>>> force me to use hidden properties. As for the name, I assume it
>>> should (could ?) extract it from the url anchor text ?
>> Indeed, according with the Schema.org documentation
>> <http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#schemaorg_expected> (see also my
>> email on Intended types
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Nov/0039.html>)
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/SportsEvent">
>> <a href="http://www.london2012.com/" *itemprop="url"*>London 2012
>> Olympics</a>
>> </div>
>>
>> should be valid.
>>
>> As a general rule I would say one should *annotate as much as possible*.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Adrian Giurca
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to quote the example on the Schema.org website, the
>>>> Event
>>>> itemtype page, where they gave this example of a url inside of the
>>>> itemtype Event markup.
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> <divitemprop="events"itemscopeitemtype="http://schema.org/Event">
>>>> 2. <ahref="foo-fighters-may23-midamericacenter"itemprop="url">
>>>> 3. <spanitemprop="name">Mid America Center</span>
>>>> 4. </a>
>>>> 5. <spanitemprop="location">Council Bluffs, IA, US</span>
>>>> 6. <metaitemprop="startDate"content="2011-05-23">May 23
>>>> 7. <ahref="ticketmaster.com/foofighters/may23-2011
>>>> <http://ticketmaster.com/foofighters/may23-2011>
>>>> <http://ticketmaster.com/foofighters/may23-2011>"itemprop="offers">Buy
>>>> tickets</a>
>>>> 8. </div>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not found a way to properly create links with itemtype
>>>> Events in
>>>> the fashion you mentioned ( other than marking up all the required
>>>> information ).
>>>>
>>>> I am not saying this is not a bug, just my 2cents...
>>>
>>> Yup, some clarifications would be helpful in this case :)
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Jocelyn Fournier
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 20:59:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT