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

Re: Schema.org

From: Gustavo Freitas <axcdnt@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:04:31 -0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTim3ztR1kMVdM_K1V-F0wo_dmyVoMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>, semantic-web@w3.org
While reading a bit more about schema.org I was thinking:

- Is there any guarantee that the big Search companies will keep
implementing the same patterns?
Even if we say it's a consortium or whatever it be or not be, experience has
proved (see browsers) that when we talk about making money, each one follow
your own trail.

At first, I think it's a little dangerous.

What do you think?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:48 PM, adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>


-- 
Gustavo Freitas
http://anicetrick.tumblr.com/
+55 19 9213-5207
mailto:axcdnt@gmail.com
Received on Sunday, 5 June 2011 00:05:01 UTC

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