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

Schema.org v6.0

schema.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#21

Post by zie »

onli wrote: post #10
zie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's true? They have various values, like integers, etc all setup, They don't have a benchmark exactly, but they have Review, which can hold various values, such as: PropertyValue or QualitativeValue or QuantitativeValue or StructuredValue so you can record both opinion based values and discrete values about various properties. Plus Review holds an overall value(AggregateRating ). Sure they don't have…

Oh, it's possible to attach the benchmark rating to a specific item. in my case I'm using https://schema.org/AggregateRating for that (since one meta benchmark result consists of several benchmark results). And the specific item is then just a Product, which is okay. But how would you express that you have a list of those aggregate ratings, which are ordered on the same dimension? In general I'm struggling with how t…

I missed that as well. Glad you found it!

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#22

Post by pgeorgi »

setr wrote: post #5
pgeorgi wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to markup my processor and graphics card benchmark results (the ordered result list), but there is nothing in the schema that would allow me to do that :/ You're probably one of the most qualified persons in the world to say how such a markup has to look. Propose something at public-vocabs@w3.org or ask for it on https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues ? (But of course once you do, Google - and other…

>(But of course once you do, Google - and others - could parse your data and deprive you of site visitors because they can answer queries natively) Isn't that basically the whole point? That information provided by sites can become independent from those sites? For scraping, re-rendering, modifying, etc

Right, but I think it's worth adding the disclaimer because there are also folks who are shocked (SHOCKED!) that something like this could happen.

But you're right, that's the whole point of schema.org.

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#23

Post by uoaei »

onli wrote: post #2

It's kind of funny how specific some of those changes are. Issue #2373: Improvements around real estate description including the addition of a property accommodationFloorPlan and type FloorPlan for use when a number of accomodation entries share a common layout. Added numberOfFullBathrooms and yearBuilt. Okay then! In general the schema markup is great though. It's semantic web stuff done right: It's not hard to imp…

You can write your own ontologies and host them, if you're so inclined. With enough `sameAs` links it will be a part of the integrated whole.

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#24

Post by jszymborski »

Is there a way for me to search what schemas are defined?

Say I wanted a Schema for what I think of as a "Protein" or "Gene", how would I know that one exists or that I should write one myself?

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#27

Post by __afk__ »

onli wrote: post #2

It's kind of funny how specific some of those changes are. Issue #2373: Improvements around real estate description including the addition of a property accommodationFloorPlan and type FloorPlan for use when a number of accomodation entries share a common layout. Added numberOfFullBathrooms and yearBuilt. Okay then! In general the schema markup is great though. It's semantic web stuff done right: It's not hard to imp…

The amazing part of about json-ld is you can make up your own terms when you have missing terminology! And, if you care enough, you can push for them in Schema.org and get them introduced.

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#28

Post by emmanueloga_ »

tekkk wrote: post #11

I created an npm library for adding some basic Schema data (along with other data) for webpages and blogpages, but I have to admit it's quite a tangled mess to figure what properties you should and what are even important. It's nice that people at Schema.org try to figure out a way to describe every relation and attribute for a webpage, but I as a developer can only see an endless chore with little idea what actually…

> It would be nice if Google could shed some light what properties they consider the most useful

The structured data docs is a godo starting point [1]

1: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/article

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#29

Post by input_sh »

mister_hn wrote: post #13

But is it there really anyone using schemas? Until know, I've seen almost no example of real usage in production services. Can somebody point me to some real cases?

Any blog using Ghost, which adds Schema.org automatically.

Yoast is a pretty popular WordPress SEO tool with Schema.org support.

Any product that offers Google AMP support has to support Schema.org. Same goes for Google News.

Re: Schema.org v6.0

#30

Post by jopsen »

Avalaxy wrote: post #4
onli wrote: post #2

It's kind of funny how specific some of those changes are. Issue #2373: Improvements around real estate description including the addition of a property accommodationFloorPlan and type FloorPlan for use when a number of accomodation entries share a common layout. Added numberOfFullBathrooms and yearBuilt. Okay then! In general the schema markup is great though. It's semantic web stuff done right: It's not hard to imp…

> It's really one of the positive things Google is involved in. Is it though? Seems to me not necessarily a positive thing. If Google can serve the information on your website already on the SERP, the user won't have to visit your website anymore.

It also depends on the purpose of your website.

Are you publishing data to help/inform people? or do you want traffic on your site (for ads)?

Examples like Wikipedia is about sharing information, not so much about growing traffic..

Post reply on HN