Bob,
Isn't the same topic of creating a specialized version of a
vocabulary also discussed in the same manner in the
TBC App Dev. Quickstart Guide?
This isn't entirely clear to me... if using schema.org there
are classes and properties as well as sub-classes and sub-properties,
how does Google "understand" as it were that something is a sub-class
or sub-property? Maybe it doesn't have to do so, if one isn't
expecting the
search engine to do any inferencing? It would only recognize
statements that are explicit.
Referring to the RDFa version of schema.org from see TopQuadrant
alum Gavin Carother's blog entry
athttp://gavin.carothers.name/2011/06/04/schema-org-as-rdfa/
does
Google understand the RDFa version? I'm just wondering if this RDFa
version of the same info. that schema.org is providing will help with
SEO?
It seems like the answer is no, that if it isn't in the format of
schema.org then Google won't use it for the purpose or SEO or for
indexing. Or do I misunderstand things?
Bruce
On Jan 5, 9:47 am, Bob DuCharme <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I wrote something about using TopBraid Composer to create a specialized
> version of a standard vocabulary
> athttp://topquadrantblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-extend-ontology.html,
> if that helps with the mechanics of creating your ontology.
>
> Google does no RDF-based reasoning or inferencing. They took part in the
> schema.org design to give people a way to embed semantics in web pages to
> help the SEO of those pages. When schema.org was first announced, their
> position on RDFa's potential role was a bit vague, but since then people
> have figured out how to use RDFa to take advantage of schema.org--for
> example, see TopQuadrant alum Gavin Carother's blog entry
> athttp://gavin.carothers.name/2011/06/04/schema-org-as-rdfa/.
>
> schema.org does offer a way to define custom subproperties of its schema's
> properties (see example
> athttp://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_Data_Vocabularies#Extending_microdata_voc...),
> but it is a syntax they made up themselves. At least it uses URIs, so
> adding the appropriate RDFS properties (e.g. using {
> <http://schema.org/Person/MP> rdfs:subPropertyOf <http://schema.org/Person>}
> with the w3.org example) would define the same semantics in your own
>
> ontology so that semantic web standards compliant software like TopBraid
> would understand the relationship between these properties.
>
> Bob
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Bruce Whealton <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello,
> > I had in mind to create a new ontology based on FOAF and/or REL:
> > RELATIONSHIP: A vocabulary for describing relationships between people:
> >http://vocab.org/relationship/.html
>
> > and so initially it is just going to be myrel which will also be the
> > namespace. I had in mind an application of displaying additional
> > information that isn't specified in the REL vocabulary. As a business
> > owner, I also have clients and the REL vocabulary only has colleageOf that
> > comes closest. I would need hasClient and then additional information that
> > I might want to display such as jobs/tasks which relates to my experience
> > (and hopefully others will find this of value also. I would also like to
> > add training as either a class or set of properties of a FOAF:Person. So,
> > I would publish myrel with a different name and on web pages using RDFa I
> > would include the link to the vocabulary in the beginning of the document
> > with other namespace prefixes.
>
> > My question relates to how things like this help with SEO or
> > Marketing and with being able to publish information that you want
> > "understood" by the search engines. Can Google make any kind of reasoning,
> > even the simple class and property type RDFS inferences? Many people have
> > been including FOAF data in their web pages using RDFa but using the most
> > popular search engine, Google, can we offer some additional information
> > that would help with SEO or Semantic Marketing by giving Google more
> > semantic data to index and include when people are doing searches? It's
> > easy enough to present these various namespaces of the Semantic Web in an
> > RDFa web page at the very top where the namespace prefixes are included,
> > but does this benefit them at all in terms of SEO when people are not using
> > specialized Semantic search engines?
>
> > It may be that when a Google bot parses the page for indexing, the
> > bot can refer to the referenced vocabularies to gather the meaning of the
> > data on the page.
>
> > Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this topic,
>
> > Bruce
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid
> > Composer,
> > TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected]
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer,
TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
