Martin, I can see the point with Good Relations - they acknowledge they will continue supporting RDFa *with the vocabularies they already support*. My question then was about RDFa support for *schema.rdf.org* vocabulary. Also, Gio's question is applicable - can one have page markups with both RDFa and schema.org?
Cheers D On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:02 - 06/06/11, Martin Hepp wrote: > A related matter: > > Neither Google nor Yahoo are abandoning RDFa parsing. In fact, they improved > their parsing in the past two days when they started to accept price > information in GoodRelations only if the gr:validThrough value is a > xsd:datetime literal in the future. I noticed this when suddenly my > test-cases at > > http://www.heppnetz.de/rdfa4google/testcases.html > > did no longer validate and I had to change the data. > > Those examples also show that both of their parsers can handle multiple RDFa > vocabularies, e.g. combining GoodRelations with the Vehicle Sales Ontology > http://purl.org/vso/ns or the Tickets Ontology, http://purl.org/tio/ns. > > So it is your choice to stick to open vocabularies for Web data and RDFa, > instead of trashing superior work for a single, rigid, one-size-fits-all > taxonomy and the much lesser used Microdata syntax. I am not sure whether > paving the way for schema.org into the RDF world is the right signal. > > If you want to make sure that open, RDFa-based data will be honored by Google > and Yahoo, the best thing you can do is foster the creation of such. The most > effective way would be for all of you to encourage students to write > GoodRelations extension modules for popular shop software, or to manually add > it to large shop sites, e.g. as thesis projects. This is by far the strongest > lever to foster mass adoption of RDFa. > > We already have such for Magento, Joomla, WPEC/Wordpress; Drupal Commerce, > Prestashop, and oxid eSales are coming. See > > http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Shop_extensions > > Best > Martin > > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote: > >> All, >> I can agree, in principle, that it may be good that schema.org will >> contribute to the generation of more structured data, albeit not linked, at >> least in the beginning. >> Nevertheless, they could have at least published their vocabulary in RDFS, >> as M. Hausenblas and his group at DERI brilliantly did, if only to show >> support for the standard... but this is besides the point. >> My major concern is that this seems to be not only a matter of syntax, as it >> is unclear whether their crawlers will *parse* RDFa at all for e.g., >> schema.rdf.org. >> From the FAQ, they seem to indicate that they *may* do so if RDFa uptake >> increases (very vague as to what a satisfactory level of adoption is). >> >> So, can someone clarify, if possible, whether if I publish a page using RDFa >> and schema.rdf.org syntax, it will be properly parsed and indexed in any of >> those search engines? >> >> Cheers >> Daniel >> >> >> >> > []s D
