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

Re: Schema addition request

From: Brian Tremblay <schema@btrem.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:33:29 -0700
To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
Message-ID: <a375c7b2-14ae-2195-ceef-1b4b79fc2553@btrem.com>
On 3/19/17 11:57 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:24 PM Brian Tremblay wrote:
>> On 3/18/17 4:29 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>> On 3/18/17 11:55 AM, Brian Tremblay wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/17 6:13 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:59 AM BJM wrote:
>>>>>> Would like to propose the addition of "MedicalSpa" to the
>>>>>> schema library.
>>>>> +1 for MedicalSpa.  Looks like an industry gap that needs
>>>>> filled
>>>> Really? What is this gap? Are there search engines looking for
>>>> this schema? Are there /any/ tools that would use this new type?
>>> the below trending data is just from one search engine
>> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=USq=medical%20spa,day%20spa,medical%20clinc
>> What this shows is that people are searching for medical spa; what
>> it does not shown is that the proposed schema for MedicalSpa will
>> help them. It won't, unless Google or other entities actually make
>> use of the schema.
> Correct Brian.  And no one can make use of a schema ... that does
> not exist first.

Yeahbut schema.org has /already/ created hundreds of schemas. How many 
are meaningfully used? 10? Take the example at hand. Is anyone doing 
anything with DaySpa? What about its parent, HealthAndBeautyBusiness? Is 
anyone using that? If there's no real usage, then why create a sub-type 
MedicalSpa? That's just another schema that no one is using.

There's a sense here that there's no harm in creating new schemas, but 
there is. The community is expending resources creating new schemas, and 
authors must search an ever-expanding number of schemas to find the 
right one. So there's a cost; what is the benefit? In many cases, there 
appears to be none.

> But perhaps you don't quite realize how Schema.org works.
> http://videolectures.net/iswc2013_guha_tunnel/
> Which is why BJM initially created this type addition request.  So
> that applications, Search Engines, and others can make some sense of
> it.

Search engines ignore most schemas, afaict. In the past, when people 
have asked if they'll be used, the answer is, "you never know". IMHO, 
that's not good enough. There's an implication that using e.g. microdata 
with a schema.org vocabulary will have some benefit to the author. I 
think that implication is disingenuous.

> The typical flow with Schema.org is
> Step 1. Create schema.
> Step 2 & 3 in nearly lockstep. Community and applications/search
> engines begin using the schema created in step 1.
> Step 4. Everyone benefits much more than they did compared to 20
> years ago.

Steps 2 and 3 don't seem to happen very much, except with a handful of 

I realize this is a chicken and egg predicament. Search engines can't
consume a schema that no one uses, and no one will use a schema that 
search engines don't consume. But it seems to me that we should take a 
bit more of the "pave the cowpaths" approach. What are authors currently 
doing, and what are search engines currently doing? and use that as a 
model for vocabs.

Brian Tremblay
Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 22:34:07 UTC

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