- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:41:11 +0530
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
On 4 Apr 2011, at 13:58, Martin Hepp wrote: > 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. Yes, I agree with this assessment. Richard > > 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 09:11:55 UTC