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

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:54:32 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kwZj9YUpqzhYvLgsGF2LSwjUy9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>
Cc: Brandon Schwartz <brandon@boomajoom.com>, "bvillazon@fi.upm.es" <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
that is indeed our current reccomendation:

please see this:

http://sindice.com/developers/publishing

"How to Publish Web Data for Effective Discovery and Synchronization"



On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Francisco Javier López Pellicer
<fjlopez@unizar.es> 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 08:55:04 GMT

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