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

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:50:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9AD7E4.902@fi.upm.es>
To: Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>
CC: Brandon Schwartz <brandon@boomajoom.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Hi Francisco

Thanks for the pointers, specially [1].
I'll try to include sitemap4rdf [2] into the list of sitemap generators

Boris

[1] http://code.google.com/p/sitemap-generators/wiki/SitemapGenerators
[2] http://lab.linkeddata.deri.ie/2010/sitemap4rdf/

On 05/04/2011 10:30, Francisco Javier López Pellicer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Meanwhile, we can use the Sitemap protocol to point to human readable 
> (HTML+RDFa) VoID descriptions. I mean, a pragmatic "semantic" sitemap 
> tool should be a tool that creates for a linked dataset
>
> (1) its VoID description (this step is optional)
>
> (2) a standard sitemap (such as the tools in [1]) with links to 
> relevant resources in the linked dataset (mandatory) and a VoID 
> description (optional but recommended)
>
> I think that this approach is simpler and don't require to convince 
> SEO consultants.
>
> In addition, we can use the Google extensions. For example, this one 
> [2] about Code Search. This is a valid description:
>
> <urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"
>
> xmlns:codesearch="http://www.google.com/codesearch/schemas/sitemap/1.0">
> <url>
> <!-- the HTML+RDFa -->
> <loc>http://dbpedia.org/page/Armenia</loc>
> </url>
> <url>
> <!-- the data (the code in Google terms) -->
> <loc>http://dbpedia.org/data/Armenia.rdf</loc>
> <codesearch:codesearch>
> <codesearch:filetype>xml</codesearch:filetype>
> </codesearch:codesearch>
> </url>
> </urlset>
>
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/p/sitemap-generators/wiki/SitemapGenerators
> [2] http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=75225
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- fjlopez
>
> Brandon Schwartz wrote:
>> 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 08:51:13 GMT

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