Re: Schema.org

This is a self service directory listing, no more and no less.
(However it means a lot more to the search engines harvesting the
information.)
It competes directly with the paid for service offered at least by Yell, and
no doubt other directory listing services.
If you think e.g.
Thing > Organization > LocalBusiness > ProfessionalService
or that most others will think like this then OK.

The real point is not what else might schema.org do but that the internet is
very normative and conformist.
A very high dose of conformity is dangerous for people, it is toxic.
The point is not 'what does the internet bring me, find for me', but what
does it filter out and how does it teach me to reflect that filtering
mechanism in the way I think and behave.

There are two fundamental thrusts to the semantic web.
1. To help prevent fraudulent activity including 'gamed' search results and
passing off in its many and various forms.
2. To provide accurate and enriched information.

1. has so far proven inimical to commercial interests and 2. would entail a
vigorous debate about the ownership of real time demographic profile data
since this pertains to both accuracy and enrichment.
This is what semantic-web@w3.org should be interested in.

We have a long way to go and, indeed, may never get there.

Adam

On 4 June 2011 16:26, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is more on RDF/a, in particular
>
> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
>
> "Mapping to RDFa 1.1
> Our use of Microdata maps easily into RDFa 1.1. In fact, all of
> Schema.org can be used with the RDFa 1.1 syntax as is. The RDFa 1.1
> version of the markup looks almost isomorphic to the Microdata
> version. Given below is an sample RDFa 1.1 markup, of the example
> given for the Product type."
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > you may have a look at the FAQ on this site:
> >
> > "Why microdata? Why not RDFa or microformats?" [1]
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > [1] http://schema.org/docs/faq.html#14
> >
> > On 6/4/2011 10:32 AM, Roberto Mirizzi wrote:
> >>
> >> Very interesting, but why only microdata? Where is the old good RDFa?
> >>
> >> Then, they say:
> >> "For example, <h1>Avatar</h1> tells the browser to display the text
> >> string "Avatar" in a heading 1 format. However, the HTML tag doesn't
> >> give any information about what that text string means—"Avatar" could
> >> refer to the a hugely successful 3D movie, or it could refer to a type
> >> of profile picture"
> >>
> >> Well, actually schema.org doesn't solve this issue: let's consider
> >> another example similar to the previous one:
> >> "For example, <h1>London</h1> tells the browser to display the text
> >> string "London" in a heading 1 format. However, the Schema.org/City
> >> 'class' doesn't give any information about which city the string refers
> >> to—"London" could refer to at least 25 different cities all over the
> >> world".
> >>
> >> On the contrary with RDFa, you could specify, e.g., something like:
> >> <span ... resource="http://dbpedia.org/resource/London">London></span>
> >> to refer to the capital to the UK.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> roberto (hoping for a real semantic web search in the future)
> >>
> >>
> >> Il 03/06/2011 15.14, Juan Sequeda ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm surprised nobody has started the discussion on the gran
> >>> announcement of Google, Yahoo and Bing on schema.org <
> http://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 <http://www.juansequeda.com>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Roberto Mirizzi
> >> http://sisinflab.poliba.it/mirizzi
> >
> >
>
>