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

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Brandon Schwartz <brandon@boomajoom.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:26:06 -0700
Message-Id: <DD8BC90C-AB77-4BAE-AFEE-284AD37370C9@boomajoom.com>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
To: "bvillazon@fi.upm.es" <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
I think that as Google and major search engines focus on quality of information instead of quantity or simple backlink counts, they will begin accepting semantic sitemaps. In the mean time, I think that using both semantic and standard sitemaps is a viable option. 

As soon as SEO people are informed about the relevance that the semantic web has for them and semantic sitemaps are easily available (say as extensions in CMS systems such as http://drupal.org/project/xmlsitemap) then I think it will take off. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Hi all
>> 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.
> I'm talking from my ignorance .... but let's try to be optimistic.
> Let's hope that some day Google will accept semantic sitemaps ... ;)
> Boris
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 00:26:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:27 UTC