On 6 December 2014 at 22:36, Wiki Billinghurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) if the schema.org metadata is a preferred means to progress, what > is the recommended means to progress such an issue > I hesitate to mention it, as I'm aware that this is likely to start a debate with lots of heat and little light, but you should be aware that schema.org is (was?) a mostly-failed attempt by the big search engines to get a new standard for meta-data widely used faster than had it gone through the existing processes, and declaring it "a preferred means to progress" is a very good way to start a fight with certain kinds of techies. :-) > 3) presumably some of this fits into the discussion about Structured > Data discussion, and what means is there to include this into that > discussion? > My personal preference would be for our efforts to focus on using Wikibase (either on wikidata.org or in "local" installs) for structured data and meta-data alike, rather than forking the workload. Emitting RDFa sourced from Wikibase on related pages sounds like a reasonable way to achieve more richly-laded pages which is helpful for users (and with the side-effect, rather than primary intent, of SEO). Thoughts from others? J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [email protected] | @jdforrester _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
