W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2015

Re: Semantic Markup at (IT) companies - living examples

From: Matthias Tylkowski <matthias@binarypark.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:30:08 +0200
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Message-ID: <55F7E520.60608@binarypark.org>
Hello Bo,
in the getschema.org wiki there is a curated list [1] of websites using 
schema.org markup.

Also our company homepage [2] includes schema.org markup. It can be 
extracted via external extractors or by sending appropriate Accept headers:
text/plain (rdf triples)
text/n3
application/ld-json

As an example [3] shows more detailed information about a single BlogPost.

[1] http://getschema.org/index.php/List_of_websites_using_Schema.org
[2] http://binarypark.org
[3] 
http://binarypark.org/post/41843702-aayows-the-first-hypermedia-publishing-platform-using-schemaorg/

Regards Matthias Tylkowski

Technischer Leiter
Binarypark UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Erich-Weinert-Str. 1
03046 Cottbus
Tel +49 (0)355 692931
Fax +49 (0)355 694171
info@binarypark.org
http://binarypark.org   

Am 10.09.2015 um 19:38 schrieb Bo Ferri:
> Hi Martin,
>
> thanks a lot again for your valuable feedback.
>
> On 9/10/2015 10:19 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> Now, the major search engines have indicated that they prefer offers 
>> for concrete products over "umbrella" descriptions, but this is 
>> really mostly a Google perspective.
>>
>> If you want to get Google Rich Snippets for products, a page should 
>> describe an offer for specific product. Since this is what most 
>> commercial sites are after, this is the dominating pattern in markup. 
>> By and large, the schema.org patterns in commercial sites are mostly 
>> determined by what is known to be actually consumed by the major 
>> search engines.
>>
>> But if you are not after rich snippets for products, it is perfectly 
>> fine to use "umbrella" descriptions of your range of products and 
>> services and price range information for those.
>
> Well at the end I would like to be able to provide websites for 
> companies (i.e. a ("real"/connected) knowledge graph that describes 
> the company is embedded) that can be effectively consumed by our 
> famous search engine vendors. So that at the end customers can find 
> rather easily a specific company by offered service, utilised/wanted 
> technology or intended target audience in (maybe) a specific country 
> or region of the world (analogues like one can do it (more or less) 
> with a mercantile directory).
> Therefore, the search engine needs to understand the knowledge graph 
> of the company at its best. That's why, I would like to make use of 
> "schema.org" as much as possible and do it in the "schema.org way". 
> Thereby, rich snippets (if available for the utilised entity type, 
> e.g. product or web page) or "knowledge graph widgets" (e.g. for the 
> organizations themselves) are a nice and informative side effect. 
> Nevertheless, at the end it only matters (and helps), if we can make 
> the connection between customer and company (i.e. contracts finally). 
> The knowledge graph of the company is a nice and interesting side 
> effect for the company itself (but nothing worth, if one cannot make 
> money somehow + somewhere at the end ;) ).
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Bo/T
>
>
> PS: maybe schemaorg:Product is then probably not the best way to 
> describe such "umbrella" services
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 09:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 October 2015 23:48:44 UTC