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 15:52:11 -0700
To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1f51fdc6-f5f3-d47e-cb62-06787dc5c0f3@btrem.com>
On 3/20/17 8:02 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> May I suggest that speculating on the exact behaviour and internal
> structure of search engines (whether my employer or any other) is
> unlikely to be a productive use of this mailing list, or the inboxes
> of the several hundred people on it.
> Those who hope for an explicit list of exactly how each search
> engine handles structured data should turn to the documentation
> sites published by that search engine. You are unlikely to get a lot
> more detail here or on the schema.org site.

The point I was trying to make is not specific to search engines. It's 
not, does Google use HealthAndBeautyBusiness? or will Google use 
MedicalSpa? It's broader: does it make sense to create a new vocab for 
every imaginable business, every imaginable building, every imaginable 
service, etc. if services are not looking for that level of specificity? 
I imagine LocalBusiness would be good enough for a huge number of local 
businesses, be they book stores, hardware stores, bike shops, or groceries.

> we really can't keep having the "but does/will
> Google/Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/etc explicitly use it?" thread here every 3
> weeks

If this topic keeps coming up, that's an indication that the community 
is concerned about the relevance of schema.org and the vocabs that are 
being created. I don't see the point in pooh-poohing the question.

Brian Tremblay
Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 22:52:47 UTC

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