W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2011

Re: SPARLQ endpoint discovery

From: Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:30:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9AD32E.4040207@unizar.es>
To: Brandon Schwartz <brandon@boomajoom.com>
CC: "bvillazon@fi.upm.es" <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>

Meanwhile, we can use the Sitemap protocol to point to human readable 
(HTML+RDFa) VoID descriptions. I mean, a pragmatic "semantic" sitemap 
tool should be a tool that creates for a linked dataset

(1) its VoID description (this step is optional)

(2) a standard sitemap (such as the tools in [1]) with links to relevant 
resources in the linked dataset (mandatory) and a VoID description 
(optional but recommended)

I think that this approach is simpler and don't require to convince SEO 

In addition, we can use the Google extensions. For example, this one [2] 
about Code Search. This is a valid description:

<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"
    <!-- the HTML+RDFa -->
    <!-- the data (the code in Google terms) -->

[1] http://code.google.com/p/sitemap-generators/wiki/SitemapGenerators
[2] http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=75225


-- fjlopez

Brandon Schwartz wrote:
> I think that as Google and major search engines focus on quality of information instead of quantity or simple backlink counts, they will begin accepting semantic sitemaps. In the mean time, I think that using both semantic and standard sitemaps is a viable option.
> As soon as SEO people are informed about the relevance that the semantic web has for them and semantic sitemaps are easily available (say as extensions in CMS systems such as http://drupal.org/project/xmlsitemap) then I think it will take off.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Boris Villazón Terrazas<bvillazon@fi.upm.es>  wrote:
>> Hi all
>>> On 4 Apr 2011, at 13:58, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, I agree with this assessment.
>> I'm talking from my ignorance .... but let's try to be optimistic.
>> Let's hope that some day Google will accept semantic sitemaps ... ;)
>> Boris
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 08:31:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:23 UTC