Re: Help testing improvements to schema.org site infrastructure

(+TimBL, who was asking for this)

I should also add: another piece of infrastructural cleanup is that
the schema.org site infrastructure will soon understand HTTP HEAD
requests. Again thanks to Richard Wallis. As below re parsers, for now
this is only queued up for review (on the webschemas.org staging
site). HTTP enthusiasts may care to look at
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/256#issuecomment-206407672
for more details; others may not be very interested.  Review / bug
reports welcomed, as ever.

Dan

On 7 April 2016 at 13:41, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Richard Wallis has been busy integrating improved parsers into the
> schema.org site codebase. We think it is ready to go, and that you
> should not see anything different from the outside, but there is
> always the possibility that the new parsers (for RDFa, JSON-LD etc
> schema definitions) interpret our files differently from the older
> ones. So we'd appreciate a few more sanity checks before integrating
> these changes into the live schema.org.
>
> You can see a test version of this work at http://sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/
> (also http://bib.sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/
> http://auto.sdo-rjwtest1.appspot.com/ etc.).
>
> Historically we have defined our schemas using a somewhat unusual file
> format based on HTML+RDFa1.1, and we have parsed it with a custom (and
> non-compliant) pseudo-RDFa format. These changes integrate the
> opensource rdflib parsers which implement RDFa 1.1 much more
> accurately, as well as opening up the possibility that we might use
> other notations like JSON-LD for schemas (including extensions) in
> futre. For now we won't rush into those discussions, but we do want to
> make sure we haven't broken anything, so thanks for any feedback!
> Please have a click around and let us know if anything seems
> suspiciously different to the normal site. The site is running on the
> materials being put together for our next release candidate so there
> may be rough edges in the actual content, but that's another matter.
> We are mainly here looking to sanity check our belief that the new
> parser is reading the definitions from the data/schema.rdfa file
> properly....
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 13:25:34 UTC