Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#61

Post by benatkin »

rauljara wrote: post #3

All I could think while reading through the getting started was: that is an awful lot of added text. After a little more thought: that is an awful lot of added work. And while it won't be hard to have tools that make the process easier, the sort of work that goes into adding that data can never be completely automated (otherwise, we would have no need for it). Given that all the search engines will be using it, all m…

Some people were already doing this before, but with other formats. I did a little comparison between this and the one Best Buy currently uses, GoodRelations.

https://gist.github.com/1005688

I like this quite a bit better.

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#62

Post by Maxious »

baconner wrote: post #54

Putting aside the technology and schema decisions they've made IMO its great to see these three throwing their weight behind some common metadata even if it does step on some toes. Now if they'd only add some schema targeted towards downloadable public data sets. I'm dying for a good global public dataset search beyond competing data markets and data.gov.* sites.

They should start with http://wiki.ckan.net/Schema_for_Packages for datasets

There's a lot on schema.org for social media websites/business lookup but should be more for open data. I was looking for a linked data schema to represent financial transactions (X paid Y $999 for Z) but schema.org only goes so far as Sales. XBRL explictly states it is not for "A transaction level activity".

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#63

Post by thomas11 »

benatkin wrote: post #61
rauljara wrote: post #3

All I could think while reading through the getting started was: that is an awful lot of added text. After a little more thought: that is an awful lot of added work. And while it won't be hard to have tools that make the process easier, the sort of work that goes into adding that data can never be completely automated (otherwise, we would have no need for it). Given that all the search engines will be using it, all m…

Some people were already doing this before, but with other formats. I did a little comparison between this and the one Best Buy currently uses, GoodRelations. https://gist.github.com/1005688 I like this quite a bit better.

Well, the two gists don't quite encode the same information. In the schema.org example, one would still have to write code to parse the string dates. In the RDFa example, one could link several sites on the shared purl.org URL of, e.g., Friday, to answer questions like "which restaurants are open on Monday". That's the whole Linked Data idea.

On the other hand, the RDFa way is more painful when the opening hours differ between the days of the week.

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#64

Post by gnaritas »

mgkimsal wrote: post #2

Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators (tested on the w3 validator). Unless, perhaps, you just mark your doctype as html and be done with it?

> Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators

Why would I care? What matters to me is that Google gets people to my site.

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#65

Post by ericmoritz »

Kilimanjaro wrote: post #59
Kilimanjaro wrote: post #58

Nothing an xml data island could not have solved. Even an external xml data island with internal references for better performance and less clutter. Even an external JSON data island would have been better for web consumption. Microformats? I'll pass.

Ok, here is my proposal. Use a link to an external resource with all the information you want attached to that page like: The resource can be cached, served static or even included in the page inside a tag Here is the html: Chicken marsala Fried chicken Chicken curry Here is the data island in json: { head:{ title:'', source:'', version:'' }, items:[ { id:'1234', type:'recipe', title:'Chicken marsala', ingredients:'h…

actually that's what rel="alternative" is used for; an alternative representation of the current page. You something like this could be done:

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#66

Post by ryannielsen »

jaynate wrote: post #57
Loic wrote: post #24

For most of my "quick searches", I already have the answer from within the search results listing. It looks like it will go one step further, we are not going to have to leave the results page to have complex answers. I am not sure if I want to provide all my hard work in a format which will maybe help the search engines a bit, but mainly the spammers a lot as they will be able to automate the creation of content far…

Bingo, this my first response as well. What happens when users stop clicking through to content because it's being served up by Google, Bing or Yahoo? I guess it could actually hurt them as well. If users aren't providing information back to the algorithm in the form of a click through related to a search term, don't the search engines also risk losing a key signal of relevance?

Why unilaterally assert this will decrease click-throughs?

If I see immediately relevant data for restaurant hours, movie times, a person's bio, etc, I'm far more likely to click-through and start looking at a menu, making a reservation, or getting more background.

They may well expect increased click-throughs leading to more site traffic for those who adopt.

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#67

Post by benatkin »

thomas11 wrote: post #63
benatkin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people were already doing this before, but with other formats. I did a little comparison between this and the one Best Buy currently uses, GoodRelations. https://gist.github.com/1005688 I like this quite a bit better.

Well, the two gists don't quite encode the same information. In the schema.org example, one would still have to write code to parse the string dates. In the RDFa example, one could link several sites on the shared purl.org URL of, e.g., Friday, to answer questions like "which restaurants are open on Monday". That's the whole Linked Data idea. On the other hand, the RDFa way is more painful when the opening hours diff…

The datetime attribute is designed to be easy to parse. They stick to a consistent format on schema.org. They reference ISO 8601 which is quite a bit more complicated, but hopefully they'll add something saying they only support a tiny subset of what ISO 8601 allows to make it easier to write tools.

http://schema.org/Duration

The tools aren't there yet so it's not as useful for linked data as RDFa right now, but hopefully it will be more useful soon.

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#68

Post by ericmoritz »

ericmoritz wrote: post #65
Kilimanjaro wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, here is my proposal. Use a link to an external resource with all the information you want attached to that page like: The resource can be cached, served static or even included in the page inside a tag Here is the html: Chicken marsala Fried chicken Chicken curry Here is the data island in json: { head:{ title:'', source:'', version:'' }, items:[ { id:'1234', type:'recipe', title:'Chicken marsala', ingredients:'h…

actually that's what rel="alternative" is used for; an alternative representation of the current page. You something like this could be done:

Actually after reading the microdata spec, there's a application/microdata+json format that would probably work better:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#application-microdata-json

So you'd have an alternative resource
That file would look like this:

   {
    "items": [
    {
      "id": "http://example.com/events/2010/06/03/schweet",
      "type": "http://schema.org/Event",
      "properties": {
        "startDate": ["2010-06-03"],
        "location": [{
          "id": "http://example.com/places/my-crib",
          "type": "http://schmea.org/Place",
          "properties": {
            "url": ["http://example.com/places/my-crib"],
            "address": [{
              "type": "http://schema.org/PostalAddress",
              "properites": {
                "addressLocality": "Knoxville",
                "addressRegion": "TN"
              }
            }]
          }
        }]
      }
    }
    ]
   }
Who knows if Google will actually use that file though.

Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web

#69

Post by bergie »

rauljara wrote: post #3

All I could think while reading through the getting started was: that is an awful lot of added text. After a little more thought: that is an awful lot of added work. And while it won't be hard to have tools that make the process easier, the sort of work that goes into adding that data can never be completely automated (otherwise, we would have no need for it). Given that all the search engines will be using it, all m…

It depends how you present the idea of adding machine-readable information to pages. After all, nobody is forced to do it, so you need to show some benefit before the "semantic web" will happen.

Schema.org is doing it with the SEO angle: mark up your pages like this, and they'll be presented better in search engines.

With VIE (https://github.com/bergie/VIE) we take a different angle: mark up your pages with RDFa, and they'll become editable.

Post reply on HN