Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Google had said before, in their Rich Snippets documentation, that they support common RDF vocabularies such as FOAF as alternatives to their custom microformats schemas ported to RDFa. Also, what they mentioned schema.orgsounded like they will continue to support these current formats. -Leif War

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 6:32 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: I think that technically, the only thing they want to avoid is people using 2 - 3 different markups for *the same* content, but the way they are currently describe it may make site-owners think that when they want to please Google, they should leave their

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

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

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 2:53 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.

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 3:37 PM, glenn mcdonald wrote: It seems pretty clear to me that schema.org is a good step for data and humans. It's unlikely to be the end of anything, and I have my own set of particular issues and regrets** about it, but it's a potentially huge visibility/credibi

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

I think that technically, the only thing they want to avoid is people using 2 - 3 different markups for *the same* content, but the way they are currently describe it may make site-owners think that when they want to please Google, they should leave their fingers off RDFa. So the crucial thing

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Right, I thought as much. Which makes the point of schema.rdf.org vocabulary support by the parsers even more critical to encourage its adoption... D On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:19 - 06/06/11, Patrick Logan wrote: > Google has advised against "mixing markup" because it "confuses their > parsers". I h

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Google has advised against "mixing markup" because it "confuses their parsers". I have not seen similar advice from the other two vendors. (Which strikes me as odd, but nevertheless...) On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Schwabe wrote: > Martin, > I can see the point with Good Relations -

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

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

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

> > 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 allright but in practice - at the next round of releases of these CMS are you *realistically* going to argue A

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

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 suddenl

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

> 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? > that's all they'd have to say not to piss people off but they decided not to do it. didnt cost anything. pretty

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

It seems pretty clear to me that schema.org is a good step for data and humans. It's unlikely to be the end of anything, and I have my own set of particular issues and regrets** about it, but it's a potentially huge visibility/credibility boost for the ideas of structured data and common vocabulari

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

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 brilliant

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 12:45 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: Thanks Martin. I appreciate your views - in fact I was hoping you would help me put the thing in context, as this is clearly your world (no irony intended). I didn't think we were hopping on schema.org I thought what had happened was another way of publish

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Thanks Martin. I appreciate your views - in fact I was hoping you would help me put the thing in context, as this is clearly your world (no irony intended). I didn't think we were hopping on schema.org I thought what had happened was another way of publishing metadata had come along, and we (at

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 12:27 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: Hi Kingsley, thanks - but two important points: 1. GoodRelations is not really in danger, because Google and Yahoo will continue their support. It's never in danger since it isn't about syntax :-) I am not afraid GR might go away for the sake of schem

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Hi Kingsley, thanks - but two important points: 1. GoodRelations is not really in danger, because Google and Yahoo will continue their support. I am not afraid GR might go away for the sake of schema.org. 2. What is a problems is their unclear message re mixing schema.org elements with RDFa - so

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 11:30 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: As the three major seach engines agree on it, it will become a de-facto standard regardless to wether we like it or not. Hi, do not understand why you all hop on schema.org. It is absolutely unclear whether schema.org will make it, for the simple reasons

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

> As the three major seach > engines agree on it, it will become a de-facto standard regardless to > wether we like it or not. Hi, do not understand why you all hop on schema.org. It is absolutely unclear whether schema.org will make it, for the simple reasons that: 1. The schema.org syntax fo

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

On 6/6/11 9:59 AM, Thomas Bandholtz wrote: For me, schema.org is just another schema. As the three major seach engines agree on it, it will become a de-facto standard regardless to wether we like it or not. Obviously, they decided not to re-use anything as they are sure enough they will be re-us

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

For me, schema.org is just another schema. As the three major seach engines agree on it, it will become a de-facto standard regardless to wether we like it or not. Obviously, they decided not to re-use anything as they are sure enough they will be re-used instead. What you bring up is called poly

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Interesting question. As an an engineer, I was trying to work out if the schema was fit for purpose. Of course, I was assuming that we agreed on what the purpose was, but that was a mistake, as it usually is. I thought that the purpose was that I would have a schema I could then use in my RDF, t

Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

Am 04.06.2011 17:35, schrieb Pat Hayes: > Far as I can see, one could simply delete every range-string triple. Nothing > would break in the RDFS by doing this, and AFIKS nothing is gained from > having these range assertions. Deleting every range assertion would not express what they want to sa