This has been invented a number of times. Facebook's version is called Open Graph.
The semantic web is now widely adopted
121–130 of 269 posts
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#122worth the bother. "preview" on the capitalocenic web without any mention of the Link Relation Types does not a semantic web adoption make. no mention of the economic analysis and impact of monopoly, no intersectional analysis with #a11y.
if the "preview" link relation type is worth mentioning it's worth substantiating the claims about adoption. when did the big players adopt? why? what of the rest of the types and their relation to would-be "a.i." claims?
how would we write html differently and what capabilities would we expose more readily to driving by links, like carousels only if written with a11y in mind? how would our world-wild web look different if we wrote html like we know it? than only give big players a pass when we view source?
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#123The article talks about JSON-LD, but there is also shema.org and open graph. What which one should you use, and why? Should you use several? How does that impact the site?
JSON-LD uses schema.org schema
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had pretty much the same reacon while reading the article. "BlogPosting" isn't particularily informative. The rest of the metadata looked like it could/should be put in tags, done. A very bad example if the intention was to demonstrate how cool and useful semweb is :-)
The schema.org data is much more rich than meta tags, though. Using the latter, an author is just a string of text containing who-knows-what. The former lets you specify a name, email address, and url. And that's just for the Person type—you can specify an Organization too.
That's still just tangential Metadata. The point of a semantic web would be to annotate the semantic content of text. The vision was always that you can run a query like, say, "physics:particles: proton-mass", over the entire web, and it would retrieve parts of web pages that talk about the proton mass.
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#125The semantic web standards are sorely lacking (for decades now) a killer application. Not in a theoretical universe of decentralized philosopher-computer-scientists but in the dumbed down, swipe-the-next-30sec-video, adtech oligopolized digital landscape of walled gardens. Providing better search metadata is hardly that killer app. Not in 2024. The lack of adoption has, imho, two components. 1. bad luck: the Web got…
Killer applications solve real problems. What is the biggest real problem on the web today? The noise flood. Can semantic web standards help with that? Maybe! Something about trust, integrity, and lineage, perhaps.
Semantic Web doesn't help with the most basic thing: how do you get information ? If I want to know when was the Matrix shot, where do I go ? Today we have for-profit centralized point to get all information, because it's the only way this can be sustainable. Semantic Web might make it more feasible, by instead having lots of small interconnected agents that trust each other, much like... a Web of Trust. Except we know where the last experiment went (nowhere).
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#126I don't see how one can have any hope in a Semantic Web ever succeeding when we haven't even managed to get HTML tags for extremely common Internet things: pricetags, comments, units, avatars, usernames, advertisement and so on. Even things like pagination are generally just a bunch of links, not any kind of semantic thing holding multiple documents together ( exists, but I haven't seen browsers doing anything with i…
I don't think we necessarily need new tags: they narrow down the list of possible into an immutable set and require changing the structure of your already existing content. What exists instead are microformats (http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2), a bunch of classes you sprinkle in your current HTML to "augment" it.
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had pretty much the same reacon while reading the article. "BlogPosting" isn't particularily informative. The rest of the metadata looked like it could/should be put in tags, done. A very bad example if the intention was to demonstrate how cool and useful semweb is :-)
The schema.org data is much more rich than meta tags, though. Using the latter, an author is just a string of text containing who-knows-what. The former lets you specify a name, email address, and url. And that's just for the Person type—you can specify an Organization too.
Which was already possible with RDF. It is hard to not see JSON-LD as anything other than "RDF but in JSON because we don't like XML".
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#128I've playing with RSS feeds recently, suddently it occured to me, XML can be transformed into anything with XSL, for static hosting personal blogs, I can save articles into the feeds directly, then serve frontend single-page application with some static XSLT+js. This is content-presentation separation at best. Is JSON-LD just reinventation of this?
> This is content-presentation separation at best.
The idea is the best, but arguably the implementation is lacking.
> Is JSON-LD just reinventation of this?
Yup. It's "RDF/XML but we don't like XML"
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#129> If Web 3.0 is already here, where is it, then? Mostly, it's hidden in the markup.
I feel like this is so obvious to point out that I must be missing something, but the whole article goes to heroic lengths to avoid... HTML. Is it because HTML is difficult and scary? Why invent a custom JSON format and a custom JSON-to-HTML compiler toolchain than just write HTML?
The semantics aren't hidden in the markup. The semantics are the markup.
Re: The semantic web is now widely adopted
#130I wish there was a better alternative to JSON-LD. I want to avoid duplication by reusing the data that's already in the page by marking them up with appropriate tags and properties. Stuff like RDF exists but is extremely complex and verbose.