- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:28:13 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
I agree. But it is unlikely that Google will accept semantic sitemaps and it will be hard or impossible to convice SEO consultants to waive a Google-valid sitemap in favor of a semantic sitemap. So as of now, I think it is the best we can get. Martin On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 4 Apr 2011, at 13:44, Martin Hepp wrote: >> Since Semantic Sitemaps don't validate in Google tools, it is hard to convince site-owners to use them. >> >> However, there is a work-around: You can publish BOTH a regular sitemap and a semantic sitemap for your site and list both in the robots.txt file. >> >> Google should accept the regular one (you could also submit this to them manually) and ignore the semantic sitemap. RDF-aware crawlers would find both and could prefer the semantic sitemap. > > Yes, this works AFAIK. But this style of using Semantic Sitemaps loses their main advantage: being a simple extension of an established format that many webmasters already use. > > Best, > Richard > > > > >> >> The downside of this approach is that you risk to increase the crawling load on your site. But I would assume you could minimize the overlap of URIs in both - e.g., you do not need to tell Google of your compressed RDF dump file resources. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Martin >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >>> Hi Giovanni, >>> >>> Semanitc Sitemaps seemed like a good idea because it was a very simple extension to standard XML Sitemaps, which are a widely adopted format supported by Google and other major search engines. >>> >>> What killed Semantic Sitemaps for me is the fact that adding *any* extension element, even a single line, makes Google reject the Sitemap. >>> >>> In practice, XML Sitemaps are not an extensible format. >>> >>> On the question of complexity of Sitemaps and VoID: Publishers will get it right if and only if there is a) some serious consumption of the data that publishers actually care about and b) a validator. At the moment neither a) nor b) is given, neither for Semantic Sitemaps nor for VoID. >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> On 3 Apr 2011, at 18:16, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: >>> >>>> With the Sitemap extension called Semantic Web Sitemap we did indeed >>>> give a very simple alternative. >>>> It was also partially adopted >>>> >>>> http://www.arnetminer.org/viewpub.do?pid=190125 >>>> >>>> but what breaks it for that protocol is the part about explaining (to >>>> a machine) how to go from a dump to "linked data publishing" which is >>>> a very fuzzy concent as fuzzy as "describe" >>>> >>>> the chances of someone getting that file actually right were slim to >>>> begin with (we had to correct several times those who tried) and as >>>> far as my reports go the chances of getting void right >>>> (which is in RDF therefore much less intuitive for human editing than >>>> a simple XML like sitemaps) cant get much better. >>>> >>>> i personally think a single line in the sitemap.xml file is really >>>> what'sneeded so wrt this this part of the extention really does its >>>> job. however until there is someone seriously consuming this there >>>> wont be a need to standardize. >>>> >>>> Gio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Javier López Pellicer >>>> <fjlopez@unizar.es> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A related question is SPARQL endpoint fingerprinting... Which >>>>>> is not necessarily straightforward as often people put them >>>>>> behind HTTP reverse proxies that stomp on identifiable >>>>>> headers... In principle it would be interesting to do a >>>>>> survey to see the relative prevalence of different SPARQL >>>>>> implementations. >>>>> >>>>> Agree. >>>>> >>>>> SPARQL endpoint discovery and SPARQL endpoints fingerprinting could be two >>>>> research lines related with the architecture of SemWeb: >>>>> >>>>> - Indexing SPARQL enpoint (with/without the help of vocabularies such as >>>>> void) -> A hint for knowing the effective size of the SemWeb initiatives >>>>> >>>>> - SPARQL endpoint fingerprint identification -> "Market share" analysis of >>>>> SPARQL technology pervalence >>>>> >>>>> -- fjlopez >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 08:28:47 UTC