Re: Schema Markup Documents ie: .bot files

If the document is being parsed by a search-bot, then you'd want


   1. <script type="application/ld+json">
   2. {
   3.   "@context": "http://schema.org",
   4.   "@type": "Person",
   5.   "address": {
   6.     "@type": "PostalAddress",
   7.     "addressLocality": "Seattle",
   8.     "addressRegion": "WA",
   9.     "postalCode": "98052",
   10.     "streetAddress": "20341 Whitworth Institute 405 N. Whitworth"
   </script>


Whereas; the traditional foaf file looks a little different to that;

https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card.rdf
<https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=timbl%20foaf&oq=timbl%20foaf&aqs=chrome..69i57.10007j0j4#>

   1.
   <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NhZ00FxMaqcJ:https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card.rdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au>


http://melvincarvalho.com/

OG likes something like,

<meta property="og:title" content="The Rock" /><meta
property="og:type" content="movie" /><meta property="og:url"
content="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/" /

http://lod-cloud.net/ has an array of alternatives.  I'm sure some could be used

to help with smart wheelchairs or all sorts of other use-cases,

I'm thinking about future 'data by design' web-production use-cases,
so people use a site,

without necessarily ever using the UI provided by that site.


Regrdless, Too many ways to provide logic to websites.  Therefore
being able to switch it up,

like changing the CSS properties based on the browser / device - makes
sense to me...


On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 at 06:06 Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> <script type="application/ld+json">{"@context": "http://example.org",
> "@type": "Whatever", ... }</script> seems good enough for the use cases
> I've encountered in production so far.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HTML should allow for an array of ontologies to be used.  Schemaorg is
> needed for search discovery. Others are required for a variety of different
> purposes.
>
> To decentralized, It would be good to change the way the document is
> presented based on the client.
>
> Its of course important to ensure a page is available to search. But I
> don't think it's important to ensure all the ontology (linguistics) is
> embedded in schemaorg.
>
> Tim.h.
>
> On Tue., 4 Oct. 2016, 8:41 pm Jonas Smedegaard, <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
>
> Quoting Timothy Holborn (2016-10-04 11:19:47)
> > Had an idea.
> >
> > The idea relates to the various ontology mark-up currently placed in-line
> > with a HTML document.  Problem is various agents want different formats /
> > different ontologies.
> >
> > So,
> >
> > HTML5 currently has a
> >
> > .HTML
> > .js
> > .css
> >
> > the suggestion is to add a .bot file (or other name - as that's not
> > consequential)
> >
> > The intention is to improve support for schema by identifying what the
> > client is, much like the means CSS improves user-experience for 'style'.
> >
> > In this way, if the 'agent' is FB - then OG tags; or search providers =
> > schemaorg, etc.
> >
> > The external file would need to be linked to tags in the HTML doc;
> allowing
> > it to be flexibly parsed using various schema markup to suit different
> > agents.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Problem is, as I see it, that ontologies like schema.org are designed
> for a specific purpose.
>
> Seems backwards to me to support segmentation of communication like
> that: HTML was invented as a means to _unify_ the needs for exchanging
> documents, and RDF to do the same for data more generally.  Your idea
> seems to try go the opposite direction and encourage single-purpose
> sub-languages of RDF.
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>
>
>