- From: Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:56:11 +0200
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50505C3B.10500@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Maybe it is an option to use both, a literal and a resource, at the same time? <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Book"> <span itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Shakespeare, William</span></span> <meta itemprop="author" content="Shakespeare, William" /> </div> Am 11.09.2012 11:26, schrieb Cord Wiljes: > Dear Adrian, > > thank you for your answer. I would prefer the first solution, too. I m > just not sure that Google's rich snippets parser is already following > the additional "hop" through the Person entity: > > Version 1 (with hop): > > Item > *Type:* http://schema.org/book > author = /Item/( 1 ) > Item 1 > *Type:* http://schema.org/person > name = Shakespeare, William > > Version 2 (without hop) : > > Item > *Type:* http://schema.org/book > author = Shakespeare, William > > To give a use case: Someone is searching in a search engine for "books > by William Shakespeare". Will version 1 be found? And will it be > considered as relevant as version 2? > > I believe that the main motivation to put semantic markup into > websites right now is to improve the website's visibility (relevance) > in search engines. So the way the search engines honor these versions > will have a steering effect on their adoption. As version 1 is real > Linked Data, I believe it to be crucial that it is accepted. I would > be very glad for any information if it already is accepted. > > Best wishes, > Cord > > > Am 07.09.2012 15:44, Adrian Giurca wrote: >> Schema.org does not provide a validation/correctness mechanism. >> According with their documentation property values should follow an >> INTENDED TYPE, e.g, "author" value should be an instance of >> http://schema.org/Person >> However, if the web master cannot provide a complete markup, as >> your first example , then an "incomplete" markup can be used (your >> second example). >> >> It is the responsibility of the annotation processor to "understand" >> the necessary instance i.e., "Shakespeare, William" is the name of a >> http://schema.org/Person >> >> As such, the first solution is the better and desirable (I guess you >> tested with http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets ), >> the second is not the best, but still can be used instead doing nothing. >> >> >> On 9/6/2012 5:40 PM, Cord Wiljes wrote: >>> **if I want to describe a book in schema.org: Which of the following >>> two versions is correct / better? >>> >>> <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Book"> >>> <span itemprop="author" itemscope >>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span >>> itemprop="name">Shakespeare, William</span></span> >>> </div> >>> >>> Or just: >>> >>> <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Book"> >>> <span itemprop="author">Shakespeare, William</span> >>> </div> >>> -- Cord Wiljes Semantic Computing Group Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) Bielefeld University Phone: +49 521 106 12036 Mail: cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de WWW: http://www.sc.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/people/wiljes Room H-123 Morgenbreede 39 33615 Bielefeld
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 09:56:45 UTC