Mythical Differences: RDFa Lite vs. Microdata
Metacrap
0.1. Version History Version 1.3, August 26 2001. Fixed typos. First published version. Version 1.2, May 23 2001. Version 1.1, May 18 2001. Version 1.0, May 15 2001. 1. Metadata is "data about data" -- information like keywords, page-length, title, word-count, abstract, location, SKU, ISBN, and so on. If everyone would subscribe to such a system and create good metadata for the purposes of describing their goods, services and information, it would be a trivial matter to search the Internet for highly qualified, context-sensitive results: a fan could find all the downloadable music in a given genre, a manufacturer could efficiently discover suppliers, travelers could easily choose a hotel room for an upcoming trip. A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be a utopia. 2.2 People are lazy You and me are engaged in the incredibly serious business of creating information. But info-civilians are remarkably cavalier about their information. This laziness is bottomless. 3. Of course not.
RDFa Lite 1.1
Status of This Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at This is an Editorial Revision of the Recommendation published on the 7th of June, 2012. W3C is expected to address errata in a future Edited Recommendation of RDFa 1.1 Lite. This document is the culmination of a series of discussions between the World Wide Web Consortium, including the RDFa Working Group, the Vocabularies Community Group, the HTML Working Group, and the sponsors of the schema.org initiative, including Google, Yahoo! This document was published by the RDFa Working Group as a Recommendation. Please see the Working Group's implementation report. This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. 1. This section is non-normative.
About Microformats
Designed for humans first and machines second, microformats are a set of simple, open data formats built upon existing and widely adopted standards. Instead of throwing away what works today, microformats intend to solve simpler problems first by adapting to current behaviors and usage patterns (e.g. XHTML, blogging). Microformats are: A way of thinking about dataDesign principles for formatsAdapted to current behaviors and usage patterns (“Pave the cow paths.”)Highly correlated with semantic XHTML, AKA the real world semantics, AKA lowercase semantic web, AKA lossless XHTMLA set of simple open data format standards that many are actively developing and implementing for more/better structured blogging and web microcontent publishing in general. Microformats are not: The microformats principles See the wiki for more detail.
Rich snippets (microdata, microformats, RDFa en Gegevens markeren) - Webmasterhulpprogramma's Help
Rich snippets (microdata, microformats, RDFa en Data Highlighter) Rich snippets (de paar regels tekst die worden weergegeven onder elk zoekresultaat) zijn bedoeld om gebruikers een idee te geven van wat er op de pagina staat en waarom de pagina relevant is voor hun zoekopdracht. Als Google de inhoud op uw pagina's begrijpt, kunnen we rich snippets maken. Drie stappen voor rich snippets: 1. Google raadt u aan microdata te gebruiken, maar alle drie onderstaande indelingen worden geaccepteerd. 2. Google ondersteunt rich snippets voor deze inhoudstypen: Google kan ook markeringen voor video-inhoud herkennen en we gebruiken deze om onze zoekresultaten te verbeteren. 3. Gebruik de tool voor het testen van gestructureerde gegevens om ervoor te zorgen dat Google uw gemarkeerde gegevens kan lezen en ophalen. Dat is alles. Het kan enige tijd duren voordat rich snippets worden weergegeven in zoekresultaten of op Places-pagina's. Welke methode is geschikt voor u? Opmerking:
What’s Best: Microformats, RDFa, or Micro Data?
In a recent post by Mike Blumenthal about Google’s announcement of supporting Microformats for local search, Andy Kuiper asked in the comments whether it would be best to go with Microdata versus RDFa or Microformat for marking up local business information. As the number of flavors of semantic markup have grown, I think Andy’s not the only one to wonder which markup protocol might be ideal. Here’s my opinion. When you’re asking “which is better?” It’s this last orientation of the question that I’m focusing upon — which semantic protocol is going to work best for Search Engine Optimization (“SEO”)? Now, you might think that since I was probably the earliest marketer to recommend using Microformats for SEO that I’d feel so “invested” in the protocol that I might push it exclusively. Microformats have been established the longest of the three protocols, and used by the search engines the longest. So, which is best for SEO purposes?
The Open Graph protocol
Open data
An introductory overview of Linked Open Data in the context of cultural institutions. Clear labeling of the licensing terms is a key component of Open data, and icons like the one pictured here are being used for that purpose. Overview[edit] The concept of open data is not new; but a formalized definition is relatively new—the primary such formalization being that in the Open Definition which can be summarized in the statement that "A piece of data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike Open data is often focused on non-textual material[citation needed] such as maps, genomes, connectomes, chemical compounds, mathematical and scientific formulae, medical data and practice, bioscience and biodiversity. A typical depiction of the need for open data: Creators of data often do not consider the need to state the conditions of ownership, licensing and re-use. I want my data back. Closed data[edit]
Computer Networks and ISDN Systems - The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine
Volume 30, Issues 1–7, April 1998, Pages 107–117 Proceedings of the Seventh International World Wide Web Conference Abstract In this paper, we present Google, a prototype of a large-scale search engine which makes heavy use of the structure present in hypertext. Google is designed to crawl and index the Web efficiently and produce much more satisfying search results than existing systems. The prototype with a full text and hyperlink database of at least 24 million pages is available at To engineer a search engine is a challenging task. Apart from the problems of scaling traditional search techniques to data of this magnitude, there are new technical challenges involved with using the additional information present in hypertext to produce better search results. Keywords World Wide Web; Search engines; Information retrieval; PageRank; Google
