- From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:54:32 +0100
- To: Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es>
- Cc: Brandon Schwartz <brandon@boomajoom.com>, "bvillazon@fi.upm.es" <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3c.org>
that is indeed our current reccomendation: please see this: http://sindice.com/developers/publishing "How to Publish Web Data for Effective Discovery and Synchronization" On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Francisco Javier López Pellicer <fjlopez@unizar.es> wrote: > Hi, > > 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 > consultants. > > 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" > > xmlns:codesearch="http://www.google.com/codesearch/schemas/sitemap/1.0"> > <url> > <!-- the HTML+RDFa --> > <loc>http://dbpedia.org/page/Armenia</loc> > </url> > <url> > <!-- the data (the code in Google terms) --> > <loc>http://dbpedia.org/data/Armenia.rdf</loc> > <codesearch:codesearch> > <codesearch:filetype>xml</codesearch:filetype> > </codesearch:codesearch> > </url> > </urlset> > > > [1] http://code.google.com/p/sitemap-generators/wiki/SitemapGenerators > [2] http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=75225 > > Cheers, > > -- 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 08:55:04 UTC