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

Re: Schema.org

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:14:34 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTin6EXstG3Hh=b=-oToczifWn1VPRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Cc: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
I did not view at schema.org as a definitive solution, but as a
starting point for sharing and understanding  (again, I have not
studied it, but at least I can understand most of what it says at a
glance :-)

Of course the concerns are valid, especially challenges to uniqueness/uri issue

I also did not realise it does not seem possible to upload/create new
schemas as yet

(Suppose they accept suggestions?)

Anyway Adam, in what way do you think schema.org should
address the issue you raise below?

(Progress doesnt happen in a straight line)

cheers

Pdm

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote:
> I worked for Yell.com at Yell Labs.
> Yell are a sunset tech industry. They have a large investment in existing IT
> structure which was built to ensure a book could be produced canonical for
> the years listing.
> What they are left with is a sales force (largely commission based) that
> scour the country for very small business to renew or add to the directory -
> often with on line presence including SEO, as inducement.
> But they have been largely disintermediated by current technology and the
> expectations that search and social media give rise to.
> The value of a canonical listing no longer exists - what is valuable is
> findability which is what search engines provide.
> Yell were not in the least interested in a semantic approach.
> They seem to want to possess a data silo that they can charge entry/exit to
> in somehow.
> But this highlights the underlying conflict in this way:-
> When I create a web site for my tiny business, even where I follow the
> format in schema.org, surely I own that data? But I want a search engine to
> index me for free, gaining its revenue through other means.
> Now the way the search engine company will gain its revenue will be by
> examining my business plus searches, that is use information about my
> business to enhance the profile it creates of people who make searches in
> which my business appears as a result.
> They may try to sell this avenue to advertising to me or to someone else, or
> both.
> Now the conflict is that actually that information could be very valuable to
> me, but it is not freely available at all.
> While I think that Yell is disintermediated and that they cannot produce the
> volume of searches through their own properties to produce this valuable
> secondary data, it also remains that the secondary data is an artifact of
> large search or usage volumes.
> Conceivably the public have an interest in this data, or some aspects of it.
> It is here that I think a potential conflict exists.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 3 June 2011 14:14, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm surprised nobody has started the discussion on the gran announcement
>> of Google, Yahoo and Bing on schema.org
>> What do you all think? Is this a step forward or a step backwards?
>> Is this "the best news I have heard in years regarding the structured Web,
>> RDF, and the semantic Web" [1] or not?
>> Looking forward to this discussion!
>> [1] http://www.mkbergman.com/962/structured-web-gets-massive-boost/
>> Juan Sequeda
>> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>> www.juansequeda.com
>
>
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2011 12:15:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:25 UTC