SEO reaction. I'm hesitant to either use superlatives or make predictions concerning search engine innovations (I'm the first to deride commentators that use the phrase "game changer" in almost any context), but the joint announcement by Google, Yahoo and Bing introducing schema.org is, in my opinion, pretty big news. Schema.org at once provides a mechanism by which semantic web technologies can become a lot more mainstream, and at the same time offers the possibility of superior search visibility for search marketers that embrace this standardized, structured on-page markup. Both searchers and publishers of quality content (by which, in this context, I really mean "quality data") stand to gain by the introduction of schema.org.
An Extraordinarily Brief Introduction to Structured Data Structured data is a mechanism by which relationships between things can be expressed in a machine-readable format. Schema.org is microdata. Major Implications of Schema.org. Schema.org - Do I Need to Pay Attention to This? Crispin Sheridan | June 29, 2011 | 2 Comments inShare25 The alliance between the three big search engines and what it means for your search marketing. On June 2, 2011, Google, Yahoo, and Bing announced the launch of schema.org, their cooperative alliance providing a universal baseline of support for microdata types.
Microdata are HTML5 specifications enabling webmasters to embed semantic data inside the code of existing web pages. The shortest explanation of microdata is: "It helps all three engines understand the semantics of your site. " Example 1: Standard Google search for the keyword phrase "surf n' turf recipes. " Example 2: Same search with modifier "shrimp" clicked to "yes. " Microformatting allows sites to provide additional information like key ingredients, cook times, calorie counts, as well as user reviews. So now that we see how microdata can potentially modify and impact the SERPs, the question then becomes, "are microdata right for your site?
" The answer is, "maybe. " Schema.org vs Semantic Web. Danny Ayers : Raw Blog. Back in 2002, the following issue was put before the TAG: httpRange-14 : What is the range of the HTTP dereference function? TBL's argument the HTTP URIs (without "#") should be understood as referring to documents, not cars. By 2005 a resolution was accepted. If a GET is done and the thing being referred to isn't a document, then a 303 redirect should be used to provide something which is a document. As these things go, this is quite an elegant solution. Additionally it's accepted practice to use #-URIs for things which aren't documents. But I liked the 303 approach, and did my share of grumbling when things like Microformats and OpenID appeared to conflate the notion of a person with their home page, using the same URI for both. 1. ( solid ) : HTTP doesn't have a notion of a "complete" representation of a resource. 2. ( adequate ) : a resource may have representations reasonably served with very different media types.
I'd better mention the barmy part. A microdata2json Python script. +Vous Recherche Images Maps Play YouTube Actualités Gmail Documents Agenda Plus Traduction Mobile Livres Shopping Blogger Reader Photos Vidéos Encore plus Account Options Connexion Rejoindre Google+ Partagez ce que vous voulez avec qui vous voulez Ajouter aux cercles Danny Ayers Employeur actuel Web R&D Établissement fréquenté London College of Furniture Lieu de résidence Mozzanella Afficher le profil complet Signaler ce profil Includes a very handy-looking microdata2json Python script. Re. the "rumor that Ian Hixie [ + Ian Hickson ] of Google wrote up the Microdata spec in a weekend because he hates RDFa" - this appears to be Hixie's initial mail on the matter: His main rationale here against just using RDFa is that it's too powerful.
Re-posting + Ed Summers 's post so it can be shared Public (would I be right in thinking this is necessary for it to have a public URL?). Un commentaire ? GoodReads microdata. I’m not sure how long it has been there, but I just happened to notice that GoodReads (the popular social networking site for book lovers to share what they are reading and have read) has implemented HTML5 Microdata to make metadata for books available in the HTML of their pages. GoodReads has chosen to use the the Book type from schema.org vocabulary, most likely because the big three search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo) announced that they will use the metadata to enhance their search results. So web publishers are motivated to publish metadata in their pages, not because it’s the “right” thing to do, but because they want to drive traffic to their websites. If you are new to HTML5 Microdata, schema.org and what it means for books, check out Eric Hellman’s recent post Spoonfeeding Library Data to Search Engines.
And if you are generally curious about HTML5 Microdata, the chapter in Mark Pilgrim’s Dive into HTML5 is really quite good. and you’ll see: &crickets; SemTech2011BOF - Semantic Web Standards. Update: See notes from the BOF: Organized at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square hotel, 333 O'Farrell Street, at the SemTech 2011 Conference We would like to invite all interested parties to take part at a BOF, organized during the SemTech 2011 conference, on Structured Data in HTML.
The questions arising have been around us for a long time, but the recent announcement of schema.org made the discussion more timely. Here are the questions that we propose to discuss (but any participant is welcome to raise additional questions): We see lots of interest in vocabulary development: companies like Facebook, the New York Times, ITPC, Best Buy, Schema.org, Dublin Core, and others.
The BOF takes place on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 12:30, in room Franciscan A. There is a projector in the room if needed. Food is not served, bring your own! See you there! Ivan Herman, Semantic Web Activity Lead Raw IRC logs: Microdata + RDF. As part of the ongoing discussion about how to reconcile RDFa and microdata (if at all), Nathan Rixham has put together a suggested Microdata RDFa Merge which brings together parts of microdata and parts of RDFa, creating a completely new set of attributes, but a parsing model that more or less follows microdata’s.
I want here to put forward another possibility to the debate. I should say that this is just some noodling on my part as a way of exploring options, not any kind of official position on the behalf of the W3C or the TAG or any other body that you might associate me with, nor even a decided position on my part. Simplifying RDFa As I’ve said before, RDFa, in my experience, is complicated not primarily because of the whole namespaces/CURIEs issue but because its processing model tries to be too clever. RDFa was designed to largely fit in with existing markup and turn it into embedded data “just” by adding a few attributes here and there. Thus a simple image like: Multiple Types. Microdata RDFa Merge - W3C Wiki. Introduction Important: this is not a specification, or even a proposal, it's just some notes from Nathan Rixham, thinking out loud, in a publicly visible and editable space.
This page focusses on taking the best elements of Microdata and RDFa and creating a simple, for now fictional, set of attributes to handle metadata needs in HTML. For now this note introduces the following attributes: item, whose presence specifies a new item, and which can also be used to set the subject/id of the item (see itemid in md, and about in RDFa). Example 1: Basic data Let's start with basic data, which doesn't involve any URIs as names, it's just generic untyped data. <section item type="Person"> Hello, my name is <span property="name">John Doe</span>, I am a <span property="title">graduate research assistant</span> at the <span property="affiliation">University of Dreams</span>. This would produce the following Items: Example 2: Introducing URIs as names for properties and types and in RDF: Notes.
Is Schema.org Really a Google Land Grab? Last week the Web's three leading search companies - Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! - announced a new structured data collaboration called Schema.org. It includes more than 100 new types of website markup for content like movies, music, organizations, TV shows, products, places and more. The stated aim of Schema.org is to "improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages.
" However, is this collaboration routing around existing web standards, as promoted by the governing web body the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)? Since the news was announced, we've discovered that the W3C was not consulted about Schema.org. And given that Google dominates the search market, should we be worried that Google will control a substantial part of the markup used on webpages if - as expected - Schema.org gets significant take-up? Firstly, for big picture context, this situation is somewhat reminiscent of the Microsoft land grab in the dot com era of the Web. Richard Cyganiak - Multiple itemtypes in Microdata. There’s a lot of discussion recently around HTML5′s microdata proposal, and how it relates to W3C’s earlier RDFa standard that is currently being updated for HTML5. Microdata solves many of the use cases of RDFa in a much simpler way. But some other use cases it cannot solve. This is because microdata assumes a world where there are very few or even just a single vocabulary; mixing vocabularies on a single item is rather difficult.
Jeni Tennison has an excellent statement of the problem, along with a proposed solution. In this post I put forward another proposal for addressing at least part of the problem. The problem: microdata is limited to a single itemtype per element. Why is this a problem? An example. <div><span>26 Dun Aengus</span>, <span>Galway</span>, <span>Ireland</span>. Then here’s how I would do it with schema.org terms: And here with vCard terms: It is clear why combining both versions into a single one is difficult. Multiple itemtypes without ambiguity: Here’s the proposal. Peter Mika on schema.org. Bing, Google, and Yahoo! Have announced schema.org yesterday, a collaboration between the three search providers in the area of vocabularies for structured data. As the ‘schema guy’ at Yahoo!
, I have been part of the very small core team that developed technical content for schema.org. It’s been an interesting process: if you doubt that achieving an agreement in the search domain is hard, consider that the last time such an agreement happened was apparently sitemaps.org in 2006. However, over the years, the lack of agreement on schemas have become such a major pain point for publishers new to the Semantic Web, that eventually cooperation became the only sensible thing to do for the future of the Semantic Web project.
So how did we get here? Given the above history, I’m extremely glad that cooperation prevailed in the end and hopefully schema.org will become a central point for vocabularies for the Semantic Web for a long time to come. Like this: Like Loading... Schema.rdfs.org - Home. Schema.rdfs.org - Tools. Programming Languages JavaScript Philip Jägenstedt has developed MicrodataJS, a jQuery plug-in for microdata providing an API similar to the HTML5 Microdata DOM API, as well as the Live Microdata tool that allows you to test your markup in the browser. Lin Clark has developed MicrodataPHP, a PHP library based on MicrodataJS. Alexandru Pruteanu has developed PHPStructuredData, a set of PHP libraries that use the vocabulary to implement and output, based on the context of the page, Microdata or RDFa Lite 1.1 semantics.
Ruby Gregg Kellogg has developed the RDF::Microdata gem to parse microdata into RDF using the RDF.rb platform. Lawrence Woodman has developed Mida, a microdata extractor/parser library for Ruby. Python Ed Summers has developed an rdflib plugin that enables to parse Microdata and process the resulting RDF. Perl Toby Inkster has written a "fairly experimental parser for HTML microdata". Java Hitoshi Uchida has developed microdata/RDFa-Lite C library. Publishing Editors. OpenLink conversion to RDFS+OWL. Microdata and RDFa in TopBraid Composer. The next release of TopBraid Composer will include comprehensive support for editing and processing schema.orgMicrodata, and will also have improved support for RDFa. TopBraid is an extension of Eclipse and thus inherits a lot of goodness from the platform, including a very nice HTML editor. It was straight-forward and highly desirable to extend TopBraid with native support for those Web Data formats.
Here is a preview of what it will look like. Working with Microdata and RDFa When I started exploring Microdata for my own web site, I created a new Eclipse project within TopBraid Composer containing the HTML, CSS and image files for the site. While I was adding the Microdata tags to the HTML documents, I quickly discovered that RDF based tooling can be extremely helpful to make sure that the published metadata is consistent and of good quality. Linked Web Data is much more useful than isolated data snippets on individual pages. Analyzing Web Data with SPARQL and SPIN. URIBurner.com: a Linked Data Generation & Transformation Service. Virtuoso Sponger. What Is The Sponger? The Virtuoso Sponger is the Linked Data middleware component of Virtuoso.
It generates Linked Data from a variety of data sources, and supports a wide variety of data representation and serialization formats. The Sponger is transparently integrated into Virtuoso's SPARQL Query Processor where it delivers URI de-referencing within SPARQL query patterns, across disparate data spaces. It also delivers configurable smart HTTP caching services. Optionally, it can be used by the Virtuoso Content Crawler to periodically populate and replenish data within the native RDF Quad Store. The Sponger is also a full-fledged HTTP proxy service, directly accessible via SOAP or REST interfaces.
As depicted below, OpenLink's broad portfolio of Linked-Data-aware products supports a number of routes for creating or consuming Linked Data. Why is it Important? A majority of the worlds data naturally resides in non-Linked-Data form at the current time. How Does It Work? Installation Steps. Developers.any23.org. Sindice - The semantic web index. Omnidator. Mhausenblas/omnidator - GitHub. Schema.rdfs.org - FAQ. This page is an expanding set of FAQs about using schema.org terms in RDF. 1. RDFS and OWL Modeling of schema.rdfs.org Q: Why do you limit the ranges of many properties to string? People might want to use URIs or blank nodes.
The RDFS translation only reflects what schema.org says. The expected type of many properties is “Text”, which we translate as string. Q: Schema.org documentation explicitly say that you can use a text instead of a Thing/Person/other type, why is this not reflected in the RDFS? That's ok—we didn't say that schema:Thing is disjoint from literals, so you can use a string when the declared range is schema:Person. Q: Why don't you use rdfs:Literal instead of xsd:string to allow the strings to be language-tagged? The problem is that xsd:string is too narrow and rdfs:Literal is too broad. Q: Why don't you use owl:allValuesFrom instead of the ugly union domains/ranges? This is a valid question in terms of good OWL modelling.
Q: Nothing is gained from the range assertions. 2. Schema.org Alignment - DCMI_MediaWiki. Schema.org: First, The Good News. Drupal-RDFa reaction. Microdata. Can microdata support multiple vocabularies? | OpenSpring. CC LRMI reaction.