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.
asked 12 Dec '12, 23:53
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.
answered 18 Dec '12, 16:23
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:
Have a look at a comparison of RDFa and Microdata.
answered 13 Dec '12, 06:56
Maybe a good statement of two search engines can be read here:
Seems to me, that they still support it, but they decided to focus on (or prefer) microdata.
answered 14 Dec '12, 14:05