- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:49:23 +0200
- To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Bob: gr:name and gr:description are Google-specific. If you use dc:title / dc:description or rdfs:label / rdfs:comment, your data may not be included in Google Rich Snippets. You can easily use multiple properties for the same literals, of course or define a SPARQL CONSTRUCT rule or a mapping via owl:subPropertyOf. The motivation for gr:name and gr:description was that Google prefers a minimal number of namespace declarations, and foaf:page and foaf:depiction were more important for me at that point, so I sacrificed on the textual properties. Also, for E-Commerce applications, it may make sense to have a specific GoodRelations property for textual elements. Design tasks get pretty complex if one has to take into account the - ease of markup and - the ecosystem of Web-scale search engines. ;-) Martin On May 3, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Bob Ferris wrote: > Hi Martin, > > that looks good. However, I would prefer to utilise dc:title instead of gr:name and dc:description instead of gr:description. I guess, this issue was already discussed somewhere, somehow, or? > > Cheers, > > > Bob > > On 5/3/2011 8:56 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: >> Dear all: >> >> I tried to visualize the minimal RDF pattern for using GoodRelations in a way compatible with both Google and the Semantic Web at large. >> Attached, please find the respective illustration. >> >> It is meant as a complement to the complete GoodRelations UML diagram. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Martin > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 09:49:49 UTC