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

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:05:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9ADB67.6070503@unizar.es>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
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>
I start to believe that tools such as Elda and Pubby should publish in 
addition sitemap/void descriptions of the exposed SPARQL enpdoints. And 
even, the robots.txt when they are launched in a standalone fashion.

I mean, these tools should be active players in data/SPARQL endpoint 
discovery in the Web, not only passive data publishers.

Cheers,

-- fjlopez

Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> 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 09:06:41 GMT

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