Joho the Blog » Schema.org

Schema.org

Bing, Google and Yahoo have announced schema.org, where you can find markup to embed in your HTML that will help those search engines figure out whether you’re talking about a movie, a person, a recipe, etc. The markup seems quite simple. But, more important, by using it your page is more likely to be returned when someone is looking for what your page talks about.

Having the Big Three search engines dictating the metadata form is likely to be a successful move. SEO is a powerful motivator.

4 Responses to “Schema.org”

  1. Very interesting. Let’s see what will be widely used – schema.org or the Facebook Open Graph protocol

    https://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph/

    More about it here

    http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_the_semantic_web.php

  2. David, long time, no see :-)

    I sometimes marvel upon the strive to (over)simplify semantics. Microformats tried it first, to (almost) no avail. Now we get schema.org and, before — FB’s Opengraph.

    Why? Do we really need to think about webmasters as silly asses who can’t get what a single triple of subject-predicate-object is ?

    All these “simplifications” have serious shortcomings.
    Take, as an example, the extension mechanism. Schema.org seems to have it (http://schema.org/docs/extension.html) but it is a far cry from what is offered by basic methods we ALREADY have using RDF (or RDFa).

    With Google statement they adopt GoodRelations for e-commerce, I hoped for the real breakthrough with semantics on the web. I hoped for other domains to keep up with e-commerce and choose good, well established formats and vocabularies.

    Instead I find the endless attempts to invent something that seems to be simple, while it is no more simple than the existing standards — already endorsed by W3C and global Web communities.

    Why ???

  3. Mirek — I think this is good news, no matter how you slice it. It’s a better start than “rich snippets” and, if momentum builds, it will undoubtedly lead to much richer approaches (so rich, in fact, that I have misgivings — Google’s purchase of Freebase/Metaweb positions it as a kind of concept DNS).

    David — I recall a video of you in which you were pretty skeptical of things-semantic. Is there a nuance I’m missing (probably)? Or, is it just because every OWL begins with Thing and Dasein is not a thing.

    be well

  4. Rob, I’ve long supported standards because I like interoperability, although, having been scarred by the SGML Wars, I tend to prefer lighter standards to complex, complete, perfect ones.

    What scared me about the Semantic Web was its early emphasis on building large, complex ontologies that were a variety of knowledge representation. LOD is (in my understanding) in fact a bit of reaction against the ontological emphasis. Rather, it’s better to get the data out there, use the available ontologies and vocabularies, and let computers sort ‘em out, imperfectly and messily. (I prefer inclusive messes to well-ordered curations, although I think I’m not a fanatic and recognize roles for both.)

    So, I can see why I may seem inconsistent from the outside, but from the inside I think I am one smooth pile of creamy nougat.

Leave a Reply


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon