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

Idea for RDF vocabulary

From: Adam Powell <adam@adaminfinitum.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:07:30 -0600
Message-ID: <CALsiKnOuGWDiNwSyEReBM-3tZbmTqptP18JrPSO0fM+3riuT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Hello,
  As you can see by the attached email, I touched on part of this idea with
Gregg Kellog. I reviewed the "Eligible Region" specification in Good
Relations and it is close but it appears that the smallest restriction is a
state (or country) and I think that is simply too big.

  I assist a friend with their website, SEO, and SEM, for their junk
removal company. They are located in Columbus, Ohio (a fairly densely
populated area) serve a 25 mile (40km) radius area. In reviewing their
traffic (paid and organic) I learned a lot of it was for queries related to
junkyards, scrapyards and salvage (I have remedied that in the CPC
advertising). Additionally, within that there was a sprinkling related to
Columbus, Georgia and Columbus, Mississippi.

  Thus, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have a way to specify
"negative keywords" within the RDF vocabulary, as well as to neatly
delineate a service area.

Thanks for the work you do for the benefit of all.

*Adam Powell*
Adam Infinitum <http://adaminfinitum.com>
Web Design, SEO, and more.





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adam Powell <adam@adaminfinitum.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Suggestion for RDF
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>


Thanks for the reply, I'm still pretty new to web design, much less the
semantic web and it can be overwhelming how much there is to
learn...sometimes I suspect a thing is possible but I don't know what to
call it or how to enact it.  Anyway, thanks for the clarification and the
work you put in on something that will benefit us all.

*Adam Powell*
Adam Infinitum <http://adaminfinitum.com> - Web Design, SEO, and more.
Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112020362931300420447>
Twitter <http://twitter.com/adaminfinitum>
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adam-Infinitum/138532692918476>
Newsletter Sign-Up <http://www.businessforphotographers.com/free> (About
pro photo business; I write about SEO, Marketing, Web Design, Social Media,
etc.)




On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>wrote:

> Adam, thanks for the suggestion. What your asking for seems to be more
> related to vocabulary design than RDFa in  particular. You might look at
> Good Relations[1], particularly their notion of Location[2], which seems
> like it might relate to the "areas serviced" spec you suggest. I don't know
> if GR discusses the notion of areas serviced beyond specifying the location
> of the service or business itself.
>
> Schema.org also has the notion of Place [3], which is used for many other
> types, such as LocalBusiness[4]. The best place to discuss
> vocabulary-related use cases and requirements is public-vocabs@w3.org.
>
> Gregg
>
> [1] http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/
> [2] http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#Location
> [3] http://schema.org/Place
> [4] http://schema.org/LocalBusiness
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Adam Powell wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >  I have been reading up on the semantic web lately. Today specifically
> on schema.org and then on your last call draft.  I saw something on
> schema about Geo shape I think it was and I think that might work for my
> purpose but I wanted to contribute my idea anyway.
> >
> >   I think a valuable addition would be a "areas serviced" specification.
>  Lots of small businesses target specific areas and to be able to specify
> visibly or otherwise would be a wonderful addition.
> >
> > Keep up the good work, myself and the world appreciate it!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adam Powell
> > Adam Infinitum - Web Design, SEO, and more..
> > Google+
> > Twitter
> > Facebook
> > Newsletter Sign-Up (About pro photo business; I write about SEO,
> Marketing, Web Design, Social Media, etc.)
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 02:09:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:00 GMT