Re: Semantic Markup at (IT) companies - living examples

On 9/15/15 5:30 AM, Matthias Tylkowski wrote:
> Hello Bo,
> in the wiki there is a curated list [1] of websites
> using markup.
> Also our company homepage [2] includes markup. It can be
> extracted via external extractors or by sending appropriate Accept
> headers:
> text/plain (rdf triples)
> text/n3
> application/ld-json
> As an example [3] shows more detailed information about a single
> BlogPost.
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> Regards Matthias Tylkowski
> Technischer Leiter
> Binarypark UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Erich-Weinert-Str. 1
> 03046 Cottbus
> Tel +49 (0)355 692931
> Fax +49 (0)355 694171

Hi Matthais,

Building a definitive list is next to impossible since new pages emerge
daily on the Web.

I've constructed a collection of Custom Google Search Engines, scoped to
specific Entity Types that aids discovery [1].

[1] -- Custom Search
Engines scoped to Entity Types usage.

> Am 10.09.2015 um 19:38 schrieb Bo Ferri:
>> Hi Martin,
>> thanks a lot again for your valuable feedback.
>> On 9/10/2015 10:19 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>> Now, the major search engines have indicated that they prefer offers
>>> for concrete products over "umbrella" descriptions, but this is
>>> really mostly a Google perspective.
>>> If you want to get Google Rich Snippets for products, a page should
>>> describe an offer for specific product. Since this is what most
>>> commercial sites are after, this is the dominating pattern in
>>> markup. By and large, the patterns in commercial sites
>>> are mostly determined by what is known to be actually consumed by
>>> the major search engines.
>>> But if you are not after rich snippets for products, it is perfectly
>>> fine to use "umbrella" descriptions of your range of products and
>>> services and price range information for those.
>> Well at the end I would like to be able to provide websites for
>> companies (i.e. a ("real"/connected) knowledge graph that describes
>> the company is embedded) that can be effectively consumed by our
>> famous search engine vendors. So that at the end customers can find
>> rather easily a specific company by offered service, utilised/wanted
>> technology or intended target audience in (maybe) a specific country
>> or region of the world (analogues like one can do it (more or less)
>> with a mercantile directory).
>> Therefore, the search engine needs to understand the knowledge graph
>> of the company at its best. That's why, I would like to make use of
>> "" as much as possible and do it in the " way".
>> Thereby, rich snippets (if available for the utilised entity type,
>> e.g. product or web page) or "knowledge graph widgets" (e.g. for the
>> organizations themselves) are a nice and informative side effect.
>> Nevertheless, at the end it only matters (and helps), if we can make
>> the connection between customer and company (i.e. contracts finally).
>> The knowledge graph of the company is a nice and interesting side
>> effect for the company itself (but nothing worth, if one cannot make
>> money somehow + somewhere at the end ;) ).
>> Cheers,
>> Bo/T
>> PS: maybe schemaorg:Product is then probably not the best way to
>> describe such "umbrella" services


Kingsley Idehen       
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Company Web:
Personal Weblog 1:
Personal Weblog 2:
Twitter Profile:
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:
Personal WebID:

Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 14:18:28 UTC