W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2011

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:28:13 +0200
Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Message-Id: <EE9B5E35-8788-4CFD-BBD3-76E1A0EE7768@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
I agree. But it is unlikely that Google will accept semantic sitemaps and it will be hard or impossible to convice SEO consultants to waive a Google-valid sitemap in favor of a semantic sitemap. So as of now, I think it is the best we can get.

Martin

On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 4 Apr 2011, at 13:44, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> Since Semantic Sitemaps don't validate in Google tools, it is hard to convince site-owners to use them.
>> 
>> However, there is a work-around: You can publish BOTH a regular sitemap and a semantic sitemap for your site and list both in the robots.txt file.
>> 
>> Google should accept the regular one (you could also submit this to them manually) and ignore the semantic sitemap. RDF-aware crawlers would find both and could prefer the semantic sitemap.
> 
> Yes, this works AFAIK. But this style of using Semantic Sitemaps loses their main advantage: being a simple extension of an established format that many webmasters already use.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The downside of this approach is that you risk to increase the crawling load on your site. But I would assume you could minimize the overlap of URIs in both - e.g., you do not need to tell Google of your compressed RDF dump file resources.
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Giovanni,
>>> 
>>> Semanitc Sitemaps seemed like a good idea because it was a very simple extension to standard XML Sitemaps, which are a widely adopted format supported by Google and other major search engines.
>>> 
>>> What killed Semantic Sitemaps for me is the fact that adding *any* extension element, even a single line, makes Google reject the Sitemap.
>>> 
>>> In practice, XML Sitemaps are not an extensible format.
>>> 
>>> On the question of complexity of Sitemaps and VoID: Publishers will get it right if and only if there is a) some serious consumption of the data that publishers actually care about and b) a validator. At the moment neither a) nor b) is given, neither for Semantic Sitemaps nor for VoID.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3 Apr 2011, at 18:16, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>>> 
>>>> With the Sitemap extension called Semantic Web Sitemap we did indeed
>>>> give a very simple alternative.
>>>> It was also partially adopted
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.arnetminer.org/viewpub.do?pid=190125
>>>> 
>>>> but what breaks it for that protocol is the part about explaining (to
>>>> a machine) how to go from a dump  to "linked data publishing" which is
>>>> a very fuzzy concent as fuzzy as "describe"
>>>> 
>>>> the chances of someone getting that file actually right were slim to
>>>> begin with (we had to correct several times those who tried) and as
>>>> far as my reports go the chances of getting void right
>>>> (which is in RDF therefore much less intuitive for human editing than
>>>> a simple XML like sitemaps) cant get much better.
>>>> 
>>>> i personally think a single line in the sitemap.xml file is really
>>>> what'sneeded so wrt this this part of the extention really does its
>>>> job. however until there is someone seriously consuming this there
>>>> wont be a need to standardize.
>>>> 
>>>> Gio
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Javier López Pellicer
>>>> <fjlopez@unizar.es> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A related question is SPARQL endpoint fingerprinting... Which
>>>>>> is not necessarily straightforward as often people put them
>>>>>> behind HTTP reverse proxies that stomp on identifiable
>>>>>> headers... In principle it would be interesting to do a
>>>>>> survey to see the relative prevalence of different SPARQL
>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agree.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SPARQL endpoint discovery and SPARQL endpoints fingerprinting could be two
>>>>> research lines related with the architecture of SemWeb:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Indexing SPARQL enpoint (with/without the help of vocabularies such as
>>>>> void) -> A hint for knowing the effective size of the SemWeb initiatives
>>>>> 
>>>>> - SPARQL endpoint fingerprint identification -> "Market share" analysis of
>>>>> SPARQL technology pervalence
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- fjlopez
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 08:28:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:42 GMT