W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

RE: Schema.org v1.6 release candidate: Roles, various fixes, site navigation improvements

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:06:31 +0200
To: <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01a301cf8b49$f2a7f240$d7f7d6c0$@gmx.net>
On 19 Jun 2014 at 00:42, Mark Harrison wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2014, at 23:04, "Markus Lanthaler" wrote:
>> Yeah, that's a good point Aaron. The problem I see with the current
"Without Markup"
>> tab is that it provides very little value to web developers which aren't
deeply involved in all
>> these discussions. They mostly spend a minute or two to find an example
they can copy-
>> paste-adapt into their sites. It's very difficult to see (visually) that
Microdata/RDFa really
>> just add a couple of attributes here and there. Look at
http://schema.org/Recipe for example.
>> All I get from the "Without Markup" table is "well, unsurprisingly the
example is about a
>> recipe". Then, when I jump to Microdata or RDFa I get snippets that are
first of all almost
>> 50% longer. It's not easy to see what was added. And in most cases I as a
developer can't
>> just copy-paste that example as the structure on my page probably looks
>> differently. So if JSON-LD would already be well-supported by all major
search engines,
>> the whole experience for web developers would indeed become much much
simpler in my
>> (obviously biased) opinion. But unfortunately we are not there yet.
>> So, what can we do to improve it in the meantime? An idea would perhaps
be to not take
>> "Without Markup" that literally. Mark the examples up with HTML but don't
annotate them.
>> Then, when switching to another tab, it's much easier to make the
> I share your concerns about the apparent lack of real support for JSON-LD
by the major
> search engines at present - see below.

I'm not concerned. I'm actually quite happy about the quick adoption it got.
JSON-LD became an official W3C standard in January.

> I also like the idea of a Turtle / N-Triples tab but if we'd really like
to be able to visualise the
> examples on schema.org as graphs, we could even consider proposing a
further additional
> tab that provides a visualisation similar to the D3.js Tree diagram
currently provided via
> http://rdfa.info/play for only RDFa markup.

I don't really want to discuss these things as it probably ends up in a very
long, unproductive debate.

> Having said that, I'd really like to see the public-facing Google
Structured Data Testing
> Tool extract *any* structured data at all from JSON-LD markup, whether
from the
> schema.org JSON-LD examples or the JSON-LD output from Google's Structured
> Markup Helper.

Yeah, that would be nice. Till they update it, you can either use Google's
Email Markup Tester


or Yandex Structured Data Validator


>  I can't help feeling that this apparent limitation in Google's Structured
> Testing Tool might be severely reducing the confidence of people to try
using JSON-LD
> markup in their web pages if they keep seeing "No data detected", even
though JSON-LD is
> perhaps more convenient for processing by smartphone apps and less brittle
than RDFa or
> Microdata when for example someone else puts a new hyperlink around an
existing image
> <img> element that is already semantically annotated.

Yep, that's probably true.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 23:07:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:32 UTC