Re: Tightening up Re: schema.org/Place: replace faxNumber and telephone with contactPoint

Hi Chaals,

On 4 Jun 2013, at 21:57, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

>> I have two problems with the Extensions section.
>> 
>> 1. It says "schema.org uses the '/' character to create extensions that are specializations of existing schema.org vocabulary"
>> 	Where do you use the '/' character? http://schema.org/Person/Engineer/ElectricalEngineer isn't a valid URI,
> 
> In what sense? That you can't find anything there? (As a URI it seems valid to me…)

Sorry, they are indeed valid URIs, but they're different from all the schema.org URIs which just include the name of the type and not its path down the hierarchy. Ie, http://schema.org/ElectricalEngineer and not 
http://schema.org/Person/Engineer/ElectricalEngineer. That's why I'm confused about the use of the / character.

> 
>> 2. I guess I should design an extension vocabulary for my own purposes, in particular for applications consuming my data who want to differentiate an ElectricalEngineer from a MechanicalEngineer, for instance. But if I do that, it doesn't help me with search engines who don't know about my extensions. In other words, why use the specialised Place/photo and not the general Thing/image, if search engines don't know Place/photo ?
> 
> The dumb-down principle is not brilliant, because your case shows where it might or might not work depending on your goal. But at least where it does, it's pretty straightforward to make it happen…

Which confirms that I can't be both general for search engines and specific for precise metadata ?
Or is there a way to tell a search engine that the type I just created (http://schema.org/Prison) is a subtype of (http://schema.org/Place)?

BTW, how do I know which types are recognised by each search engine? Place is picked up everywhere, I imagine, but probably not Cemetery.

Cheers,
Max.

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 10:55:56 UTC