On 6/6/11 2:53 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?
Daniel,
Simple answer: No.
In short, my experience has always been that their order of preference
is as follows:
1. Microformats
2. Microdata
3. RDFa (specifically GoodRelations).
Basically, GoodRelations is what's keeping RDFa on the list and on their
strategic radars. Again, I comment from experience rather than speculation.
Cheers
Daniel
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
