Re: What are those enumerations after the breadcrumb's :: called?

 On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:53 Kevin Polley <kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk>
wrote:

Can I get a clarification please.

Is "customer service" a supported value for contactType or will it be
supported later?

The reason I ask is that it does not appear in the list of the required
example values but does appear in the code examples.
see:
https
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
://
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
developers.google.com
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
/webmasters/
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
structured-data
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
/
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
customize
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
/
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
contact-
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
points#adding
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>
_structured_markup_to_your_site
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/customize/contact-points#adding_structured_markup_to_your_site>

 That looks like a problem on the Google side. I'll investigate, thanks.

Dan


thanks

Kevin Polley
https <https://plus.google.com/+KevinPolley/>://
<https://plus.google.com/+KevinPolley/>plus.google.com
<https://plus.google.com/+KevinPolley/>/+
<https://plus.google.com/+KevinPolley/>KevinPolley
<https://plus.google.com/+KevinPolley/>/
<https://plus.google.com/+KevinPolley/>

> On 17 January 2015 at 19:34, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would note that the range of schema:contactType is schema:Text, and
>> thus
>> not a schema:Enumeration.
>>
>> Note that the supported values are English language phrases, with
>> spaces,etc.
>>
>> Enumeration values, by contrast, are URIs, see e.g:
>>
>> https <https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>://
<https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>
support.google.com
<https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>
/merchants/answer/6069143?
<https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>hl
<https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>=
<https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>en
<https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en>
>>
>> "For example, it is recommended that if you’re using enumerations and
>> canonical references to use the link tag with href, and to use the meta
>> tag
>> with content for missing or implicit information."
>>
>> Further to my remark yesterday wondering about where information about
>> Google required properties can be found, it seems that this information
>> is
>> not available in machine readable form directly, but is given in a
>> number of
>> different tabular formats on various type specific pages.
>>
>> Some of the restrictions are country and category specific.
>> It may be possible to convert this information to machine readable form
>> using screen scraping, though I have not looked to see if there is RDFa
>> or
>> microdata embedded in the tables.
>
> There's nothing hidden in the tables! This is what you might call an
> "interesting problem", w.r.t. machine formats. The fewer apps use the
> data, the easier it is to say that x is 'required' or optional. But
> often enough "required" has some subtleties, although some
> approximation for each type you might have a list of 'required' fields
> for a given consumer (company? product? feature?).  It will be
> interesting to see what comes out of
> http:// <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page>www.w3.org
<http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page>/2014/
<http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page>data-shapes
<http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page>/wiki/Main_Page
<http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page>
>
> Anyway at this point the documents in
> https <https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/>://
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/>
developers.google.com
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/>/webmasters/
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/>structured-data
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/>/
<https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/> and the
> associated testing tool are very much human oriented. It's not
> inconceivable we'll find some way to express that mechanically, but
> ... humans first!
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> ps. am somewhat reminded of http:// <http://examplotron.org/>
examplotron.org/ <http://examplotron.org/>
>
>
>
>> I have not looked for corresponding restrictions for other partners.
>>
>> Simon // Plutocratic Plange processor
>
>