|
Curious to know how the Semantic Community welcomes this announcement Im' thinking of GoodRelations for example :
If you look at LocalBusiness on schema.org, there's no alignment with GR or any other known vocabulary. This not Linked data anymore, it's Semantic SEO only targeted to search engines. Does that mean they're forcing everybody to use a new vocabulary and cutting the link with previous works ? (anticipating that if microdata is the new vocab that matters, other vendors will only bother to use this one and not RDF vocabularies) |
|
I think it sucks for people who write I think it sucks for people involved in I think it sucks for people who own I think it sucks for people who own such shops and want to specify the time they close for lunch. I think it sucks for people who live or work in I think it sucks for ...and besides proposing a centralised, closed schema for the entire Web (and not doing a particularly good job) I think it sucks for a couple of other reasons... ...but if it takes off, its shortcomings are our opportunity, as long as we look at those problems in real terms, propose real solutions, and drop our sense of entitlement... ...and if it leads to some more structured data appearing on the Web, (and although it's not the best possible outcome) I can't see how that's a bad thing, RDFa or not. |
|
I think schema.org is just microformats.org with different clothes. The big three are trying to revive microformats by agreeing on common vocabularies.The reason RDFa was created is to address the lack of scalability of the microformats. Every new microformat requires a new parser to be written. This is a sysiphian effort ! RDFa requires a single parser and can leverage any mature ontologies. It would have been better that big three agree on the ontologies to use such as FOAF, Good Relations, SIOC. Search Monkey from Yahoo was close to this solution. Seems we are going 5 years backward. Fail !! Great ideas are not always coming from big companies. SOAP and all web services movement are very limited success. Simpler approach based on REST succeeded. I do not anticipate any wide adoption of schema.org. |
|
I like the move, since it may very well bring more structure to the web that people like us can extract and manipulate. It may've been nice to have seen RDFa, but I'd rather see more strucured data in a less expressive format than less structured data in a more expressive format (assuming that RDFa is unattractive to many web devs). |
|
A nice article written by Manu Sporny explains why schema.org is a very bad idea ! Excellent read. I have just gone and submitted my 2 pence worth back to the schema.org group. I hope everyone else can take the time to do likewise. |
|
I'm also a bit bothered by it. But, seems I'm not the only one: http://schema.rdfs.org/ Some additional reading: http://semanticweb.com/google-yahoo-and-bing-announce-schema-org_b20301 I suspect the reason that schema.org doesn't support RDFa is a political one and is easy to see if you read between the |
|
Can anyone name a few sites which have "LocalBusiness" schema.org data for their own business address? I can't find any, and need some for test purposes. Thanks. 1
@Nagle, welcome to the site! Please ask this as a separate question. (Look for "Ask a Question" button at the top.) |
I'm not thrilled with it, especially the complete ignorance it shows of all the valuable GoodRelations work, but I have to disagree when you say that it's not Linked Data anymore. It even uses deferenceable URIs as class identifiers, which definitely gives us something to work with when working with typical semantic web tools.
Indeed, great principles are here. Another new vocabulary, and no links with others terms ontologies is what scares me here.
@bobdc Its data but without links to other people's data it's not linked data.