W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: Minimal WPUB for a scholarly paper (of sort)

From: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:04:08 +0000
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR06MB2245E0ECF2BE638B3B03ADE2B2670@BY2PR06MB2245.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
It's not they "wouldn't be able to" (i.e. "weak"), it's that they won't without a good incentive.

If you test with the Google Structured Data Testing Tool [1], you'll still get the same number of errors [2].

This happens because Google isn't (understandably) "learning" things on the fly nor is it attempting "understand" the provided `@context` if it doesn't ultimately map into the Schema.org space.

So, this works (but it's all the wrong "meaning"):


"@context": ["https://schema.org", {"publ-resources": "http://schema.org/url"}],


So, they do support "multiple contexts" (as in they parse them), but they don't support additional vocabularies beyond Schema.org (afaict).

However, that doesn't mean there isn't value to *others* (like other software or the publishers themselves) for using other terms, it's just that they won't show up in a search at Google.com.


[1] https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool

[2] try it with https://github.com/w3c/wpub/wiki/Minimal-WPUB-for-a-scholarly-paper-(of-sort)#simple-version and you'll get 10 errors--even if you map them to URLs or ignore them with `{"@vocab": null}`




From: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 10:44:44 AM
To: Hadrien Gardeur
Cc: Benjamin Young; Ivan Herman; W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: Re: Minimal WPUB for a scholarly paper (of sort)

Is Google so weak? Can't believe it...


Le 4 juin 2018 à 16:42, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com<mailto:hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>> a écrit :

This was an option that I pointed out as well during the meeting. Given the fact that we'll need terms from bib.schema.org<http://bib.schema.org/> as well (and probably other vocabularies as well), this feels like a good approach.

The main issue with rolling our own context seems to be that Google wouldn't be able to properly parse and index these metadata.
Received on Monday, 4 June 2018 15:04:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:27 UTC