Google has advised against "mixing markup" because it "confuses their parsers". I have not seen similar advice from the other two vendors.
(Which strikes me as odd, but nevertheless...) On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Schwabe <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
