W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Schema.org Required Properties (Was "Re: Issue with rich snippets tools testing tool & businessEvent")

From: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:35:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1F8699.3090000@gmail.com>
To: Mark Keller <webnetworkz@gmail.com>
CC: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>, Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org

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>

On pageB (the target page with the full markup) :

<div itemprop="about" itemscope="itemscope" 
	<div itemprop="name">My great page</div>
	<time itemprop="startDate" datetime="2012-06-20 00:00:00">20/06/2012</time>

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.


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 Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:36:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:44 UTC