- From: Barry Carter <carter.barry@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:42:42 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, "mfhepp@gmail.com" <mfhepp@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Let me try asking more specific (and hopefully useful) questions:
- If I create a "database website" that pulls original
not-generally-available data from a database and prettyprints it
into pages, this would be an ideal use of schema.org. Is that correct?
- Suppose I create a page that lists the ~8 planets, their distances
from the Sun, and the number of satellites each has. In other words,
I compile publicly available data. Questions:
- Would it be worthwhile to schema.org-markup this page? Why or why not?
- Google's structured data page for webmasters:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/3069489?topic=3070267&rd=1
implies that *only* schema.org markup is acceptable and "universal"
(in the sense that 3 major search engines use it). Is this true?
Currently, there are no pages that have schema.org marked-up planet
data (since there is no schema.org markup for planets). Does this mean
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc, have no structured idea about planet
data? Or do they use other tools (such as wikidata.org) to learn about
planet data?
In other words, if I created an astro.schema.org and then a page with
marked-up planet data, would I be adding to the major search engines'
store of structured data, or would it just be redundant with what they
already have?
In other other words, is schema.org primarily for data that doesn't
exist in structured form anywhere else on the web?
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 18:43:16 UTC