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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:56:11 +0200
Message-ID: <50505C3B.10500@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Maybe it is an option to use both, a literal and a resource, at the same 
time?

    <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Book">
       <span itemprop="author" itemscope 
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Shakespeare, 
William</span></span>
       <meta itemprop="author" content="Shakespeare, William" />
    </div>


Am 11.09.2012 11:26, schrieb Cord Wiljes:
> 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>
>>>


-- 
Cord Wiljes
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Bielefeld University

Phone: +49 521 106 12036
Mail: cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
WWW: http://www.sc.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/people/wiljes

Room H-123
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 09:56:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 09:56:46 GMT