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

Re: Schema addition request

From: Azamat Abdoullaev <ontopaedia@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:17:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKK1bf-NjjseThYpsioSwVFuKW5MbAoWjEZjC6Q_bpPoV3+yLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
The point is not about your various senses.


I am saying if it is not used as “background knowledge” for the search
engines involved, then something wrong with one or both parties.


Again, the research mentioned is just studying a specific case: "a novel
event extraction model that uses distant supervision to assign scores to
individual event fields (event name, date, time and location) and a
structural algorithm to optimally group these fields into event records"..


Schema.org initiative has been lasting about 7 years with the prospects to
structure web data as a global knowledge web (graph), or "create, maintain,
and promote schemas for structured data on the Internet, on web pages, in
email messages, and beyond".  Besides, it has its long-existed predecessors
as Microformats, FOAF, and OpenCyc.



The schema.org ontology/vocabulary (with its classes, subclasses and
instances) is not in much use with the stakeholders knowledge systems:

Google's Knowledge Graph

Microsoft Bing's Satori Knowledge Base

Yandex's Object Answer

Yahoo! KB technologies

LinkedIn's Knowledge Graph, etc.


Just some Schema markups (Organization and Person) are used to influence
Google's Knowledge Graph results.

Meantime Schema.org is said to be sponsored by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and
Yandex <http://schema.org/>.




On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 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://research.googleblog.com/2015/12/four-years-of-
> schemaorg-recent-progress.html
> -> https://research.google.com/pubs/pub43796.html ->
> https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/
> archive/43796.pdf
> ... 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 22:17:52 UTC

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