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

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

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:32:46 +0200
Cc: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>, "<public-lod@w3.org> community" <public-lod@w3.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Message-Id: <9CF4DB01-94E2-4EF1-B8DA-C300746ADA52@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
I think that technically, the only thing they want to avoid is people using 2 - 3 different markups for *the same* content, but the way they are currently describe it may make site-owners think that when they want to please Google, they should leave their fingers off RDFa.

So the crucial thing is to convince them to clearly articulate that they accept the use of additional markup in RDFa, so that quick-and-dirty SEO coders do not avoid RDFa for unfounded fears.



On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:

> Right, I thought as much. Which makes the point of schema.rdf.org vocabulary support by the parsers even more critical to encourage its adoption...
> D
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:19  - 06/06/11, Patrick Logan wrote:
>> 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
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 17:33:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC