On 6/6/11 6:13 PM, Daniel Schwabe 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?
No, if you are expecting Google, Yahoo!, and Bing consumers (parser
hosts) to do this. In short, they made this pretty clear.
Kingsley
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
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
