- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:28:37 +0100
- To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 16 October 2014 20:53, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > <meta itemprop="seriesType" content="VideoGame"> > > ... then I think it's potentially problematic. Anything requiring > non-visible markup is should be a red flag in schema.org, since the sponsors > are so endlessly keen to limit this to situations where the declaration > requires a particular data format for machine consumption, a la dates in > ISO-8601 format. What you suggest with the "seriesType" itemprop certainly > works fabulously, but raises that red flag. I quite like seriesType, although simply finding a Series and seeing that it consists of several parts that are all of type VideoGame might be adequate for many applications, without stating an explicit Series-level type. There are probably a few mixed-media / format crossover cases where a series might mix different parts, even if a Series is most typically composed of the same kinds of thing. We have occasionally at schema.org discussed exploring a kind of parameterized type mechanism, possibly even with some syntax conventions. e.g. https://schema.org/SportsActivityLocation plus (somehow...) Sport=Bowling, Sport=Golf instead of a custom named BowlingAlley (or GolfCourse, TennisComplex etc.). This is heading in a similar direction. Regarding the sponsor's "endless" preference to avoid non-visible markup, ... there are a few statements in the schema.org FAQ discouraging too much hidden markup. But the world evolves, and the Web of today isn't quite as it was when http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm was written. I'm sure you've noticed a few Google products have been experimenting with using JSON-LD. Whether any broader schema.org and industry consensus around "non-visible" structured will emerge, I can't predict. Search engines can serve their users better when they have lots of high quality structured data - and sometimes different aspects of 'quality' pull in different directions. Modeling vs publisher/developer usability vs mischief disincentives like visibility. At this stage I think the best thing for the VideoGame design discussions is to focus on getting a reasonably simple but informative model of games. The seriesType: VideoGame construction is very similar to modeling patterns used elsewhere across schema.org. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 20:29:05 UTC