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

Google had said before, in their Rich Snippets documentation, that they
support common RDF vocabularies such as FOAF as alternatives to their custom
microformats schemas ported to RDFa.  Also, what they mentioned
schema.orgsounded like they will continue to support these current
formats.

-Leif Warner

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 6/6/11 2:53 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?
>>
> Daniel,
>
> Simple answer: No.
>
> In short, my experience has always been that their order of preference is
> as follows:
>
> 1. Microformats
> 2. Microdata
> 3. RDFa (specifically GoodRelations).
>
> Basically, GoodRelations is what's keeping RDFa on the list and on their
> strategic radars. Again, I comment from experience rather than speculation.
>
>  Cheers
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>