Frederick Giasson wrote:
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.
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
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.
Auftrag von Peter Ansell
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2009 13:35
An: Chris Bizer
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Betreff: Re: fw: Google starts supporting RDFa -- 'rich snippets'
Unlike Yahoo SearchMonkey, Google has chosen to mock up their own
ontologies instead of recognising existing vocabularies
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
supporting RDFa -- 'rich snippets'
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
