I thought that I read that the search engines would provide the same benefits and rich snippets if one used RDFa to store the schema.org code in the same way that they offer a representation based on microcode. I am trying to figure out if I will lose any benefits if I don't use microcode but use RDFa instead.

Also, for an app I have in mind, there is another vocabulary that I want to use and that is the resume/CV vocabulary, which is described here: http://rdfs.org/resume-rdf/ If the search engines like microcode better then I guess I need to create two versions of my pages. Or I can generate RDFa from RDF/XML (and perhaps using turtle as well) and just include the RDFa lower on the page and not enclose any displayable content. That might be a bad idea though.
Thanks in advance for any helpful advice or information, Bruce

asked 12 Dec '12, 23:53

Bruce%20Whealton's gravatar image

Bruce Whealton
accept rate: 0%


Thanks for accepting an answer! :)

(13 Mar '13, 16:06) Signified ♦ Signified's gravatar image

RDFa is now supported as well as microdata by schema.org, as announced earlier this year in June 2012, see these two blog posts: SemTech, RDFa, Microdata and more... and Good Relations and Schema.org. You will be able to confirm this if you test your RDFa pages with the Google Rich Snippet testing tool. RDFa pages also show up in live search results, see a live example of an event (note the dates and location in the search result): http://goo.gl/VyShi

While I'm here, let me also comment on what was said in the other answers:

Microdata is only for HTML5 and RDFa is for any XML language

RDFa works in XML but also in HTML5 (see W3 spec)

RDFa is more expressive but more complex

RDFa Lite was created to address this concern and give a simpler flavor of RDFa to web developers.

permanent link

answered 18 Dec '12, 16:23

scor's gravatar image

accept rate: 14%

Hi Bruce,

Have a look at google here and here. Google reads RDFa and you can view what the robot has found in Webmaster Tools (there's a link somewhere there too)

I think it should make no difference for search engines whether they find RDFa or Microdata. However it has some implications for the developer, mainly:

  • Microdata is only for HTML5 and RDFa is for any XML language
  • RDFa is more expressive but more complex

Have a look at a comparison of RDFa and Microdata.

permanent link

answered 13 Dec '12, 06:56

Tomasz%20Pluskiewicz's gravatar image

Tomasz Plusk...
accept rate: 31%


the link to the stuctured data testing tool: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

(14 Dec '12, 13:57) pedak pedak's gravatar image

Maybe a good statement of two search engines can be read here:

 Google: “Historically, we’ve supported three different standards for structured data markup: microdata, microformats, and RDFa. We’ve decided to focus on just one format for schema.org to create a simpler story for webmasters and to improve consistency across search engines relying on the data.”

Yahoo!:“Today’s announcement offers tremendous opportunity for growth. In addition to consolidating the schemas for the vocabularies we already support, there are schemas for more than a hundred newly created categories including movies, music, organizations, TV shows, products, places and more. We will continue to expand these categories by listening to feedback from the community and will continue publishing new schemas on a regular basis. Don’t worry if your site has already added RDFa or microformats currently supported by our Enhanced Displays program, that site will still appear with an Enhanced Display on Yahoo! – no changes required.” [1]

Seems to me, that they still support it, but they decided to focus on (or prefer) microdata.

[1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2011/06/02/microdata-rdfa-google-bing-yahoo-semantic-web/

permanent link

answered 14 Dec '12, 14:05

pedak's gravatar image

accept rate: 0%


Hm, if what you write is accurate and this actually represents a trend towards Microdata then it's a shame, because RDFa is not that much more complicated and ofeers quite a lot more IMO.

(14 Dec '12, 14:15) Tomasz Plusk... Tomasz%20Pluskiewicz's gravatar image

It is a bit confusing. In one place they seem to say they will support RDFa with the caveat that it is more complicated. In the quote from Google it says they will focus on one format, yet the links above say that one get rich snippets from RDFa. Hmm. Confusing.

(15 Dec '12, 14:10) Bruce Whealton Bruce%20Whealton's gravatar image

For me it looks like they would like to ignore all other formats but they cannot ignore RDFa, there is too much out there.

(18 Jan '13, 06:13) pedak pedak's gravatar image
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 12 Dec '12, 23:53

question was seen: 4,692 times

last updated: 13 Mar '13, 16:06