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

Re: No more Schema.org data on YouTube

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:45:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4ZZgJh5Tv5=fDLF3d_Gt-=mZ59uqcsScRK_yB-b+v-Ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Hans Polak <info@polak.es>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Very broad questions but I'll have a go.

In terms of core w3c recommendation-track groups defining their own
schemas, the increased use of Github and the moves towards a "living spec"
model are encouraging, since slow waterfall style development is rather
awkward for descriptive schemas. I expect we will also see some impact of
Shacl and/or Shex languages for characterising much tighter data structures
than RDFS/OWL can define. Typing this on a phone on a train but hope to
flesh out the latter thoughts soon.

Dan

On 9 Oct 2017 14:39, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan,

schemas are playing an increasing role in the future of standards.  as an
elder of the particular field, have you any view on the future of
ontologies & W3C?

IMHO where standards don't work without particular vocab; my thoughts are
that some modern thinking likely needs to be put into it.

Tim.H.


On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:24 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> To stress Charles' point once more, there are 100s of people on this list.
> I fear none of them will get much out of speculation on the internal
> architecture of Google's ( / YouTube's) Web infrastructure, and those of us
> with some modest knowledge of it can't talk much about it anyway. That said
> I strongly suspect the particular issue under discussion is simply a bug.
> Out of scope for this group's real focus.
>
> Let's please go back to talking about standards and schemas, rather than
> about Google!
>
> Dan
>
> On 9 Oct 2017 10:01, "Hans Polak" <info@polak.es> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > However would still be interesting to know why they do that.
>>
>> Just a guess, but when you serve dynamic content, both speed and size
>> matter. In this case, I'd venture that speed is an issue. When a request
>> comes in, one check to see if it's a browser is faster than adding the
>> schema.org info.
>>
>> A different model would result in higher speeds, but the "serve all
>> requests dynamically" model is the standard. I have done some work on a
>> "mixed content" server, but haven't pursued it. For organizations like
>> Google, having a "mixed content" server would result in huge savings. Just
>> saying.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hans Polak
>>
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 9 October 2017 13:45:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:37 UTC