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

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

From: Mark Keller <webnetworkz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:11:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPibk=EP9QB-QrA_q9AeP2wx-rMb6yb3UcsVS8uHQbc83Q0xPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Cc: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
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>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 ├ęcrit :
>
> 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" <http://schema.org/SportsEvent>>
>   <a href="http://www.london2012.com/" <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"<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 Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:11:57 GMT

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