Very nice. After Yahoo SearchMonkey has been around for a while, things are
now also moving at Google.
See:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/05/introducing-rich-snippet
s.html
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/05/introducing-rich-snippets
.html
And Ivan's
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 00:59 +0100, Hugh Glaser wrote:
But generating equivalency predicates for every conceivable domain is
not the way to go, I would suggest.
That's not quite what I meant. Rather that OWL should provide the right
tools to enable existing domain-specific vocabularies (e.g.
Unlike Yahoo SearchMonkey, Google has chosen to mock up their own
ontologies instead of recognising existing vocabularies.
Cheers,
Peter
2009/5/13 Chris Bizer ch...@bizer.de:
Very nice. After Yahoo SearchMonkey has been around for a while, things are
now also moving at Google.
See:
Hi Chris,
don't know. In a O'Reilly about Google's RDFa support, Guha says that they draw and plan to draw from existing vocabularies.
And we're not going to do this all by ourselves. As it is, we are drawing from
several sources. We're drawing from microformats. We're drawing from vCard.
Hi Chris,
It still seems a bit off for Google who normally implement clean interfaces.
It is hard to accept their goals so far since they made up a new
vocabulary for RDFa instead of matching the FOAF support that
SearchMonkey gives, and the URI's they provide for don't contain valid
top level
It is hard to accept their goals so far since they made up a new
vocabulary for RDFa instead of matching the FOAF support that
SearchMonkey gives, and the URI's they provide for don't contain valid
top level domain names when the RDFa properties are joined with the
prefixes so it looks a
Chris Bizer wrote:
Hi Peter,
don't know. In a O'Reilly about Google's RDFa support, Guha says that they draw and plan to draw from existing vocabularies.
And we're not going to do this all by ourselves. As it is, we are drawing from
several sources. We're drawing from microformats. We're
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
It is hard to accept their goals so far since they made up a new
vocabulary for RDFa instead of matching the FOAF support that
SearchMonkey gives, and the URI's they provide for don't contain valid
top level domain names when the RDFa properties are
On 13/5/09 15:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
I desperately hope that you can see the Google is providing a huge
opportunity to showcase Linked Data meme value. Again, so what -- if
they don't use existing vocabularies? What matters is that they are
using RDFa to produce structured data, and that is
Hi Kingsley,
don't know. In a O'Reilly about Google's RDFa support, Guha says that
they draw and plan to draw from existing vocabularies.
And we're not going to do this all by ourselves. As it is, we are
drawing from several sources. We're drawing from microformats. We're
drawing from
Dan Brickley wrote:
On 13/5/09 15:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
I desperately hope that you can see the Google is providing a huge
opportunity to showcase Linked Data meme value. Again, so what -- if
they don't use existing vocabularies? What matters is that they are
using RDFa to produce
Very well, very well. So we have learned now how it feels to switch from
total ignorance to lead a new technology. Just a reminder to all of us: for
years we have been ranting that Google et al don't pick up the Web of Data
stuff. Now all the big players (yes, also MS) do. Good for us.
I do not
+ We have now entered the next step in SEO. Let's call it semantic SEO. You
perfectly can continue use your own (well, actually the so called well-known
vocabularies such as FOAF, SIOC, etc.). Wherever you find some respective
Google term, you add a couple of triples. From the RDF perspective
Hi all
Agreed with Dan and all others saying we have to welcome Google's move.
But nevertheless, I take the risk to include myself in the 1000 defined
below ... :-)
I suppose pages such as [1] with indications for webmasters are likely
to be more read by webmasters than RDFa specs themselves
Bernard Vatant wrote:
Hi all
Agreed with Dan and all others saying we have to welcome Google's
move. But nevertheless, I take the risk to include myself in the 1000
defined below ... :-)
I suppose pages such as [1] with indications for webmasters are likely
to be more read by webmasters than
Sherman,
Good to see more faceted browsing work on LOD!
Will you be considering showing actual data or is showing the schema
your end goal? For example, I typed in Microsoft, and I couldn't seem
to get any information about Microsoft. I only saw that there are some
other things related to
16 matches
Mail list logo
