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

Re: new itemscope or not?

From: Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:26:42 +0200
Message-ID: <504F03D2.8070006@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Dear Adrian,

thank you for your answer. I would prefer the first solution, too. I m 
just not sure that Google's rich snippets parser is already following 
the additional "hop" through the Person entity:

Version 1 (with hop):

    Item
    *Type:* http://schema.org/book
    author = /Item/( 1 )
    Item 1
    *Type:* http://schema.org/person
    name = Shakespeare, William 

Version 2 (without hop) :

    Item
    *Type:* http://schema.org/book
    author = Shakespeare, William 

To give a use case: Someone is searching in a search engine for "books 
by William Shakespeare". Will version 1 be found? And will it be 
considered as relevant as version 2?

I believe that the main motivation to put semantic markup into websites 
right now is to improve the website's visibility (relevance) in search 
engines. So the way the search engines honor these versions will have a 
steering effect on their adoption. As version 1 is real Linked Data, I 
believe it to be crucial that it is accepted. I would be very glad for 
any information if it already is accepted.

Best wishes,
Cord


Am 07.09.2012 15:44, Adrian Giurca wrote:
> Schema.org  does not provide a validation/correctness mechanism. 
> According with their documentation property values should follow an 
> INTENDED TYPE, e.g,  "author" value should be an instance of 
> http://schema.org/Person
> However, if the web master cannot provide a complete   markup, as your 
> first example , then an "incomplete" markup can be used (your second 
> example).
>
> It is the responsibility  of the annotation processor to "understand" 
> the necessary instance i.e., "Shakespeare, William" is the name of a 
> http://schema.org/Person
>
> As such, the first solution is the better and desirable (I guess you 
> tested with http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets ), the 
> second is not the best, but still can be used instead doing nothing.
>
>
> On 9/6/2012 5:40 PM, Cord Wiljes wrote:
>> **if I want to describe a book in schema.org: Which of the following 
>> two versions is correct / better?
>>
>>     <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Book">
>>        <span itemprop="author" itemscope
>>     itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span
>>     itemprop="name">Shakespeare, William</span></span>
>>     </div>
>>
>> Or just:
>>
>>     <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Book">
>>        <span itemprop="author">Shakespeare, William</span>
>>     </div>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 09:27:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 September 2012 09:27:14 GMT