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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:53:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4DED6871.2040907@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/6/11 6:32 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> 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.

Truth of this matter is SEO coders go wherever the dominant search 
engine(s) tell them to go. In addition, they were always going to find 
RDFa a stretch to adopt. Remember, this is the black hat SEO crowd, they 
are kings of "quick and dirty" .

For you, I really think it boils down to stuff you started doing a while 
back i.e., producing Microdata based recipes alongside your RDFa, 
Turtle, RDF/XML variants. As I stated earlier, GoodRelations is 
basically what keeps the RDFa promises alive amongst these search engine 
vendors. In addition, as I stated in an earlier post, the beauty of 
GoodRelations isn't beholden to any data representation syntax, this is 
about a sound conceptual model for vendors, their offers, and associated 
products & services, above all else.

> Best
> Martin
> 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



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 23:53:45 UTC

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