W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:19:42 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=SHemov1znxc9C-QXiviBrT4SOAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, "<public-lod@w3.org> community" <public-lod@w3.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Google has advised against "mixing markup" because it "confuses their
parsers". I have not seen similar advice from the other two vendors.

(Which strikes me as odd, but nevertheless...)


On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> Martin,
> I can see the point with Good Relations - they acknowledge they will continue supporting RDFa *with the vocabularies they already support*.
> My question then was about RDFa support for *schema.rdf.org* vocabulary.
> Also, Gio's question is applicable - can one have page markups with both RDFa and schema.org?
>
> Cheers
> D
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:02  - 06/06/11, Martin Hepp wrote:
>
>> A related matter:
>>
>> Neither Google nor Yahoo are abandoning RDFa parsing. In fact, they improved their parsing in the past two days when they started to accept price information in GoodRelations only if the gr:validThrough value is a xsd:datetime literal in the future. I noticed this when suddenly my test-cases at
>>
>>   http://www.heppnetz.de/rdfa4google/testcases.html
>>
>> did no longer validate and I had to change the data.
>>
>> Those examples also show that both of their parsers can handle multiple RDFa vocabularies, e.g. combining GoodRelations with the Vehicle Sales Ontology http://purl.org/vso/ns or the Tickets Ontology, http://purl.org/tio/ns.
>>
>> So it is your choice to stick to open vocabularies for Web data and RDFa, instead of trashing superior work for a single, rigid, one-size-fits-all taxonomy and the much lesser used Microdata syntax. I am not sure whether paving the way for schema.org into the RDF world is the right signal.
>>
>> If you want to make sure that open, RDFa-based data will be honored by Google and Yahoo, the best thing you can do is foster the creation of such. The most effective way would be for all of you to encourage students to write GoodRelations extension modules for popular shop software, or to manually add it to large shop sites, e.g. as thesis projects. This is by far the strongest lever to foster mass adoption of RDFa.
>>
>> We already have such for Magento, Joomla, WPEC/Wordpress; Drupal Commerce, Prestashop, and oxid eSales are coming. See
>>
>> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Shop_extensions
>>
>> Best
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>> I can agree, in principle, that it may be good that schema.org will contribute to the generation of more structured data, albeit not linked, at least in the beginning.
>>> Nevertheless, they could have at least published their vocabulary in RDFS, as M. Hausenblas and his group at DERI brilliantly did, if only to show support for the standard... but this is besides the point.
>>> My major concern is that this seems to be not only a matter of syntax, as it is unclear whether their crawlers will *parse* RDFa at all for e.g., schema.rdf.org.
>>> From the FAQ, they seem to indicate that they *may* do so if RDFa uptake increases (very vague as to what a satisfactory level of adoption is).
>>>
>>> So, can someone clarify, if possible, whether if I publish a page using RDFa and schema.rdf.org syntax, it will be properly parsed and indexed in any of those search engines?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> []s
> D
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 17:21:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:13 UTC