W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-architypes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Discussion about previous proposal

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:17:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz6K70ZqqjtZ6UzmzgyGt8KqU0K1_ajVkNZYS1JOFYsE4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Thank you @danbri for asking the general schema.org-esque questions, it
always places, such discussions as this, in contexts.

Also stepping back to first steps of this, and other Schema.org oriented
community groups I have participated in and chair…..

Much of the structured data shared on the web, in about 30% of pages from
millions of domains (a useful overview of a subset can be seen at
<http://webdatacommons.org/structureddata/2016-10/stats/stats.html>), uses
the Shema.org vocabulary.  That data is harvested in to the knowledge graph
and similar technologies hosted by the search engines.

The search engines use this data to drive many services alongside providing
SERPs, in fact up until recently it was explicitly stated by some that
Schema.org data did not influence SERPs ratings. These other services
however are believed to improved the visibility and discoverability on the

Much of the archival resource we are talking about does not have any such
data openly published in a way that is easily consumed by the search
engines, and is therefore invisible to them.  Consulting the advisory pages
provided by the search engines, they advise including structured data using
Schema.org in one of its supported serialisation.

Assuming the above leads you want to publish Schema.org data about your
resources, the high level approach I have found from working with several
community groups and on consultancy & training engagements is as follows:

   1. Using Schema.org as it is currently described, try to mark up your
   resources describing as fully as possible the attributes of those resources
   that would be of relevance and interest to search engines and the wider web.

   2. Identify what elements are missing from Schema that are preventing
   you from doing that.

   3. Can these missing elements be overcome by enhancements to current
   terms - adjusting term definitions, recommending the use of a combination
   of types, expanding the domain and/or range of current properties.

   4. Finally, propose new terms to extend the vocabulary.


Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 14 February 2017 at 16:34, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> Backing up a bit, and asking some general schema.org-esque questions:
> Are there currently existing public sites that publish this sort of
> structured information? Are there any examples of these (sites +
> typical pages) collected?
> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 17:17:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:28:59 UTC