- From: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:59:04 +0100
- To: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>
- CC: Mark Keller <webnetworkz@gmail.com>, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>, public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi, Is there any official position from Google / Yahoo / Microsoft about what we should do in this case ? (or a least what is the current search engine parser behaviour) Thanks a lot, Jocelyn Le 25/01/12 05:35, Jocelyn Fournier a écrit : > Hi, > > Another question : > Let's say I'm adding markup on the collection page, what's happening if > I have : > > On pageA (the collection page) : > > > <div itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BusinessEvent"> > <a itemprop="url" href="pageB">My great page</a> > <time itemprop="startDate" datetime="2012-06-14 00:00:00">14/06/2012</time> > </div> > > On pageB (the target page with the full markup) : > > <div itemprop="about" itemscope="itemscope" > itemtype="http://schema.org/BusinessEvent"> > <div itemprop="name">My great page</div> > <time itemprop="startDate" datetime="2012-06-20 00:00:00">20/06/2012</time> > [...] > </div> > > ie. different informations provided on the collection and target page, > for the same event. > > If the search engine is able to say there's an error somewhere in this > case, then it should be able to extract the data from the target page to > fill the missing itemprop on the collection page. If it's not able to do > the check, it's annoying :) > > From my point of view, to try to reduce errors during markup (which is > a problem Google try to fight), we should avoid (forbid ?) any other > markup in an itemtype if itemprop="url" is used. > > > Jocelyn > > > Le 24/01/12 22:11, Mark Keller a écrit : >> Hey Everyone, >> >> I definitely agree that the amount of hidden properties should be >> minimized as best practice. >> >> " >> >> * *More is better, except for hidden text.* In general, the more >> content you mark up, the better. However, as a general rule, you >> should mark up only the content that is visible to people who visit >> the web page and not content in hidden div's or other hidden page >> elements. >> >> " >> In hindsight of my own crawling and research, I can also see how the >> requirements of this type of schema, could lead to better validation, in >> this verified form of information. >> >> Considering that I will probably run into this a lot myself with Events, >> I would definitely like closure on the topic. I do not want to redesign >> my entire layout, nor include hidden tags that are in general frowned >> upon. >> >> The main goal of search, always should be in favor of the users first. I >> believe they will do their best to align the syntax of Schema.org with >> the most relevant, valid, and verified way of consuming structured data. >> From there parsing, evaluating, and ultimately displaying it in a >> relevant manner for the end users, is up to them. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Mark Keller >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de >> <mailto:giurca@tu-cottbus.de>> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark and Jocelyn, >> >> On 1/23/2012 6:34 PM, Jocelyn Fournier wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> Le 23/01/12 09:01, Mark Keller a écrit : >>>> Hello Jocelyn, >>>> >>>> (Looping in the group to our conversation) >>>> >>>> I definitely see what you are saying about it being a link to the >>>> page >>>> with the structured markup. >>>> >>>> If you are going to markup the url for an itemtype of Event, you >>>> will >>>> most likely need to include the name, url, and startDate at a >>>> minimum. >>> >>> Actually I was considering (perhaps wrongly) if a url property is >>> used, whatever the itemtype, there shouldn't be any other markup >>> since it should be described on the target page (as long as it's >>> on the same domain). Otherwise it's just redundant informations; >>> and in my case since I doesn't display the startDate, it would >>> force me to use hidden properties. As for the name, I assume it >>> should (could ?) extract it from the url anchor text ? >> Indeed, according with the Schema.org documentation >> <http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#schemaorg_expected> (see also my >> email on Intended types >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Nov/0039.html>) >> >> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/SportsEvent"> >> <a href="http://www.london2012.com/" *itemprop="url"*>London 2012 >> Olympics</a> >> </div> >> >> should be valid. >> >> As a general rule I would say one should *annotate as much as possible*. >> >> All the best, >> Adrian Giurca >>> >>>> >>>> I would like to quote the example on the Schema.org website, the >>>> Event >>>> itemtype page, where they gave this example of a url inside of the >>>> itemtype Event markup. >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> <divitemprop="events"itemscopeitemtype="http://schema.org/Event"> >>>> 2. <ahref="foo-fighters-may23-midamericacenter"itemprop="url"> >>>> 3. <spanitemprop="name">Mid America Center</span> >>>> 4. </a> >>>> 5. <spanitemprop="location">Council Bluffs, IA, US</span> >>>> 6. <metaitemprop="startDate"content="2011-05-23">May 23 >>>> 7. <ahref="ticketmaster.com/foofighters/may23-2011 >>>> <http://ticketmaster.com/foofighters/may23-2011> >>>> <http://ticketmaster.com/foofighters/may23-2011>"itemprop="offers">Buy >>>> tickets</a> >>>> 8. </div> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have not found a way to properly create links with itemtype >>>> Events in >>>> the fashion you mentioned ( other than marking up all the required >>>> information ). >>>> >>>> I am not saying this is not a bug, just my 2cents... >>> >>> Yup, some clarifications would be helpful in this case :) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Jocelyn Fournier >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 20:59:40 UTC