W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > March 2017

RE: Schema addition request

From: Tom Marsh <tmarsh@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:39:36 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Azamat Abdoullaev <ontopaedia@gmail.com>
CC: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR21MB00670412AE3E862C5C870C2CE53A0@BY2PR21MB0067.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
To chime in from Bing's perspective, our principles for schema.org usage are in line with what Dan and Thad outlined in their mails. Creating schema is the first step and should be based on expected usage by the community (publishers, consumers, search engines, etc.). Actual usage necessarily follows the creation.

I think Dan gave a very good description of the type of usage that search engines make of schema.org, so I’m not going to try to repeat it here. Search engines have a strong self-interest to consume as much markup as they can use; doing so makes search engines more useful. It wouldn’t make sense for us to be reluctant consumers. I imagine that this applies at a high level to all the search engines that consume or contribute to schema.org.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@google.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 8:54 AM
To: Azamat Abdoullaev <ontopaedia@gmail.com>
Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Schema addition request

On 20 March 2017 at 15:43, Azamat Abdoullaev <ontopaedia@gmail.com> wrote:
> If Google/Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/etc are reluctant to use all schema.org 
> markup as background knowledge ..., then there is no big sense to proceed with the project (at least, with these stakeholders).

That is not what I'm saying. The point was that there are various senses (I gave 6 broad examples, but that wasn't an attempt to be
complete) in which search engines can use this stuff, not all of which we'll explicitly itemize. And that it is unrealistic to expect all the specific details of search engine usage to be published on this mailing list - if they're published it'll be on the various company sites (or research papers etc.).

In the case of Google we are on the record e.g. in
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresearch.googleblog.com%2F2015%2F12%2Ffour-years-of-schemaorg-recent-progress.html&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7Cc44529e263184988069a08d46fa98e0a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256221402362032&sdata=GguMZxpqCOX9XEduV09J7K0e4XLeCwFZCGPUp3IPbFI%3D&reserved=0
-> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frese

-> arch.google.com%2Fpubs%2Fpub43796.html&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchan
-> ge.microsoft.com%7Cc44529e263184988069a08d46fa98e0a%7C72f988bf86f141a
-> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256221402362032&sdata=26dkT50MTDdFYSGh
-> PT%2FEqGeStCixGUIuYHTZHrYdAJ0%3D&reserved=0 ->
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.googleusercontent.com%2Fmedia%2Fresearch.google.com%2Fen%2F%2Fpubs%2Farchive%2F43796.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7Cc44529e263184988069a08d46fa98e0a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636256221402362032&sdata=JQV1TUsun%2BXDt654aorF3EjsLsgLRQl3uvadS84abeQ%3D&reserved=0
... as using schema markup as background knowledge. But we aren't necessarily going to explicitly list everything we use schema.org markup for.

Dan

Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 16:40:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:34 UTC