- From: Robb Shecter <robb@weblaws.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:24:00 +0000
- To: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>, Brian Tremblay <schema@btrem.com>
- Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABQwFw8NTBSH4q7N1PdpKPvyX5c70snaZmn5ji7LqhB8OKCxvw@mail.gmail.com>
> It's tempting but misleading to just check whether your markup has an immediate visual effect. True. However, the uncertainty of the extent of schema.org support puts publishers in a difficult position. Since json-ld isn't a compiled or self-validating kind of code, I don't see a way to know if my schema will (a) generate a false positive error and be silently ignored by Google Search, (b) understood for its supertype, or (c) understood for its specific semantic meaning. For example: Google Search supports *Organization*, and many of its properties. Google uses this info for in various places, which is great. Imagine I have an Organization record for the State of Oregon's web page on my site oregonlaws.org. But now imagine that I learn about the more specific (and therefore appropriate, I think) organization sub-type for my content: *GovernmentOrganization* <https://schema.org/GovernmentOrganization>. I consider switching to that, and maybe I do, because the Google schema checker says it's valid. But this is a potential trap: * Google's list of supported schema types <https://developers.google.com/schemas/reference/> do not include GovernmentOrganization. * It's possible that the Google crawler will interpret the token GovernmentOrganization as a typing mistake or unknown type, and simply ignore it. * Alternatively, it's possible that the crawler will understand GovernmentOrganization to be a subtype of Organization and so keep the info, but use it for its more generic Organization meaning. There are probably other failure & semi-success modes I haven't thought of. So to me, one problem is that there's no native way, in json-ld, to identify a new & previously unknown subtype. The other issue is potential variation between the Google schema checker and crawler's understanding of schema.org. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is too strong statement. The big search engines are using > schema.org markup for a multiplicity of purposes, for a basic > underdstanding see the old post at > > > http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/GoodRelations_for_Semantic_SEO > > For Knowledge Panels etc., Googles uses a much bigger part of the vocab as > e.g. documented in the Google Dev Recipes for Rich Snippet types. > > It's tempting but misleading to just check whether your markup has an > immediate visual effect. > > Martin > > > ----------------------------------- > martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de > mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp > > > > > > On 01 Mar 2017, at 01:57, Brian Tremblay <schema@btrem.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/10/17 7:07 PM, Robb Shecter wrote: > >> What's the relationship between the tool's understanding of > >> schema.org <http://schema.org> and the Google search engine's? > > > > Not much, afaict. > > > >> I develop web apps and use the tool to verify that the Google > >> crawlers will successfully parse my pages, and then possibly even > >> make use of the structured data content. > > > > Google only uses a few types. The ones I've seen used by Google include > > Person, Product, Review, and Recipe. There are probably a few others. > > But most schema.org schemas are not used by any entities, again afaict. > > > >> Another example: a deep (or new) subclass of Organization or > >> LocalBusiness. If the tool recognizes it, do you happen to know > >> whether the search engine will as well? > > > > If it's new, probably not. > > > > In general, schema.org is way out in front on structured data schemas. > > It seems to be driven by author demand, instead of on consumer demand. > > That is, the group creates schemas when members ask for or work on one, > > rather than creating a schema when there's a business, web crawler, or > > other organization that is looking for or needs one. > > > > That's my impression. If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will be along to > > tell you otherwise. > > > > -- > > Brian Tremblay > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 21:24:45 UTC