Re: schema.org+Microdata: additional namespaces?

On 11 Sep 2012, at 16:49, Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Do Google, Bing et al. support RDFa? On www.schema.org all code examples use Microdata.

As Schema.org, they are all _supportive_ of the RDFa Lite work, and in June we said we consider it an equally fine way of representing Schema.org's vocabulary.

This does not mean they all immediately support rdfa syntax everywhere. I expect you'll see gradual rollouts in various settings. But I don't know - the companies don't discuss product plans, only vocabulary.

For example Google has an Rdfa 1.1 parser, but it's not yet entirely integrated into the Google Rich Snippets infrastructure. 

Dan


> Am 11.09.2012 16:02, schrieb Young,Jeff (OR):
>> I used both RDFa and Microdata in the WorldCat pages because it wasn't clear at the time which standard would win out in the long run. The future seems clearer now. The next release will be RDFa-only.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Martin Hepp [mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:53 AM
>>> To: Cord Wiljes
>>> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org; Stéphane Corlosquet
>>> Subject: Re: schema.org+Microdata: additional namespaces?
>>> 
>>> I would stick to one syntax per page, i.e. either microdata or RDFa. If
>>> you want to mix multiple vocabularies, RDFa has the more advanced
>>> support anyway.
>>> The additionalType property in schema.org is mainly designed to allow
>>> extensibility in an RDF-compatible way for cases where a single type
>>> per entity is insufficient.
>>> 
>>> On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Cord Wiljes wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Am 08.09.2012 00:02, schrieb Stéphane Corlosquet:
>>>>> Schema.org offers a work around for that via the additionalType
>>> property: "An additional type for the item, typically used for adding
>>> more specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax.
>>> This is a relationship between       something and a class that the
>>> thing is in. In RDFa syntax, it is better to use the native RDFa syntax
>>> - the 'typeof' attribute - for multiple types. Schema.org tools may
>>> have only weaker understanding of extra types, in particular those
>>> defined externally." - you can see it on all schema.org type pages,
>>> e.g. http://schema.org/Person
>>>> As RDFa is more advanced than Microdata: Would it make sense to use
>>> Microdata for schema.org and mix it with RDFa for other vocabularies
>>> (like Dublin Core, Good Relations,...)?
>>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> martin hepp
>>> e-business & web science research group
>>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>> 
>>> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>>> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>>> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>>> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>>>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>>> skype:   mfhepp
>>> twitter: mfhepp
>>> 
>>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>>> =================================================================
>>> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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