Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or other vocabulary systems?
On 07/07/2011 09:47 PM, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote:
> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with > schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections > or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or > other vocabulary systems?
Schema is the non-technical side of schematics, without the diagram. This is why the ideal schema is only two-levels deep. How those two levels are defined is B2B (or, URN specified, where depth is four params, or one more than octal).
Also known as "futhark" and "futhork", yet bare in mind there is no standard "tek" mode. This is the non-unicode way to type that "vocab" system.
Less commonly known, limits are within "accessibilities", or how that word is allowed to translate through the futhark OR futhork. Due to the sensitivity of accessibility, there is no best example, yet historic "artifacts" are reasonable given that words means the less-than-best accessibility in all known ways.
> On 07/07/2011 09:47 PM, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote: >> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with >> schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections >> or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or >> other vocabulary systems?
> Schema is the non-technical side of schematics, without the diagram. > This is why the ideal schema is only two-levels deep. How those two > levels are defined is B2B (or, URN specified, where depth is four > params, or one more than octal).
> Also known as "futhark" and "futhork", yet bare in mind there is no > standard "tek" mode. This is the non-unicode way to type that "vocab" > system.
> Less commonly known, limits are within "accessibilities", or how that > word is allowed to translate through the futhark OR futhork. Due to > the sensitivity of accessibility, there is no best example, yet > historic "artifacts" are reasonable given that words means the > less-than-best accessibility in all known ways.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:47 PM, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) <g9414002.pccu.edu.tw@
gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with > schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections > or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or > other vocabulary systems?
> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with > schema.org <http://schema.org>. Is there any idea about providing > collections > or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org > <http://schema.org> or > other vocabulary systems?
Great!
See the following bookmarked links demonstrating Microdata extraction:
We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it
would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to
implement the necessary code with any success.
I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively
for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer
websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information
listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however
these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and
defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simis...@google.com> wrote:
Sorry for any confusion. I see what you mean about those custom properties not being part of the schema.org vocabulary. All I meant was to show examples of schema.org microdata being used on real live websites.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM, skygod <skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > I've been following the daily disgests and admit that I do not > understand why Shawn cites http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections as > 'good' usage.
> It starts by using > <div class="content" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ > CreativeWork">
> but then allocates a number of itemprops that I cannot see as being > valid
> We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it > would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to > implement the necessary code with any success.
> I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively > for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer > websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information > listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however > these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and > defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
> On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simis...@google.com> wrote: > > You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
It's OK, Shawn. The extension mechanism of schema.org indicates that by following naming convention you can define microdata feasible. And a missing part is how extractors fetch those things exceeding the domain of schema.org properties and types. For an item, if its extending properties can be fetched correctly as well as its canonical properties, it does not matter that what properties should be listed as canonical. However if all things and properties are arbitrary, it's not easy to catch meanings of those things for higher-level systems. Thus, it's a reason I understand that every item of every type allows custom properties while it expects some canonical properties.
On extended properties, how is it explained by higher systems? It's my question.
On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:58:51 AM UTC+8, Shawn Simister wrote:
> Sorry for any confusion. I see what you mean about those custom properties > not being part of the schema.org vocabulary. All I meant was to show > examples of schema.org microdata being used on real live websites.
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it >> would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to >> implement the necessary code with any success.
>> I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively >> for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer >> websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information >> listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however >> these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and >> defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
>> On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote: >> > You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
> It's OK, Shawn. The extension mechanism of schema.org indicates > that by following naming convention you can define microdata feasible. > And a missing part is how extractors fetch those things exceeding > the domain of schema.org properties and types. For an item, if its > extending properties can be fetched correctly as well as its canonical > properties, it does not matter that what properties should be listed as > canonical. However if all things and properties are arbitrary, it's not > easy to catch meanings of those things for higher-level systems. > Thus, it's a reason I understand that every item of every type allows > custom properties while it expects some canonical properties.
> On extended properties, how is it explained by higher systems? > It's my question.
> /yhh
> On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:58:51 AM UTC+8, Shawn Simister wrote: > Sorry for any confusion. I see what you mean about those custom properties not being part of the schema.org vocabulary. All I meant was to show examples of schema.org microdata being used on real live websites.
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > I've been following the daily disgests and admit that I do not > understand why Shawn cites http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections as > 'good' usage.
> It starts by using > <div class="content" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ > CreativeWork">
> but then allocates a number of itemprops that I cannot see as being > valid
> We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it > would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to > implement the necessary code with any success.
> I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively > for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer > websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information > listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however > these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and > defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
> On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote: > > You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with > schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections > or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or > other vocabulary systems?
It would be great if anyone wants to add any sites that they create or find.
-- vLife Systems Ltd Registered Office: The Meridian, 4 Copthall House, Station Square, Coventry, CV1 2FL Registered in England and Wales No. 06477649 http://vlifesystems.com
> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with > schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections > or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or > other vocabulary systems?
> On 08/07/11 05:47, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote: >> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with >> schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections >> or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or >> other vocabulary systems?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Martin Hepp <mfh...@gmail.com> wrote: > All:
> As long as you use full URIs for additional properties, there should be no > problem for search engines to properly fetch and interpret them.
I want to be clear about this --- search engines cannot be expected to 'correctly' interpret arbitrary properties they do not know anything about, irrespective of whether you use full URIs, namespaces, curies or whatever else.
In the example below, the search engine will likely simply ignore the 'delivery method' property.
> For example, you can use the shipping information property from > GoodRelations in combination with http://schema.org/Offer:
> <!-- on the offer page, indicate this delivery option --> > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemid="#offer"> > <div itemprop="name">Hepp Technology Color TV</div> > <div itemprop="description">This TV set is the ideal multimedia center for > your home</div> > Delivery: > <a itemprop="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#availableDeliveryMethods" > href="hhttp://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#UPS">via UPS</a> > <!-- other offer properties follow here --> > ... > </div>
> Martin
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 9:44 AM, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote:
> > It's OK, Shawn. The extension mechanism of schema.org indicates > > that by following naming convention you can define microdata feasible. > > And a missing part is how extractors fetch those things exceeding > > the domain of schema.org properties and types. For an item, if its > > extending properties can be fetched correctly as well as its canonical > > properties, it does not matter that what properties should be listed as > > canonical. However if all things and properties are arbitrary, it's not > > easy to catch meanings of those things for higher-level systems. > > Thus, it's a reason I understand that every item of every type allows > > custom properties while it expects some canonical properties.
> > On extended properties, how is it explained by higher systems? > > It's my question.
> > /yhh
> > On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:58:51 AM UTC+8, Shawn Simister wrote: > > Sorry for any confusion. I see what you mean about those custom > properties not being part of the schema.org vocabulary. All I meant was to > show examples of schema.org microdata being used on real live websites.
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > I've been following the daily disgests and admit that I do not > > understand why Shawn cites http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections as > > 'good' usage.
> > It starts by using > > <div class="content" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ > > CreativeWork">
> > but then allocates a number of itemprops that I cannot see as being > > valid
> > We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it > > would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to > > implement the necessary code with any success.
> > I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively > > for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer > > websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information > > listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however > > these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and > > defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
> > On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote: > > > You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
> > Developer Programs Engineer > > Google, San Francisco > > http://freebase.com
> -------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Martin Hepp <mfh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All:
>> As long as you use full URIs for additional properties, there should be no >> problem for search engines to properly fetch and interpret them.
> I want to be clear about this --- search engines cannot be expected to > 'correctly' interpret arbitrary properties they do not know anything about, > irrespective of whether you use full URIs, namespaces, curies or whatever > else.
GoodRelations <http://www.goodrelations-vocabulary.org> is an established vocabulary, parts of which are already supported and utilized by major search engines. The property http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#availableDeliveryMethods is certainly not an arbitrary property. It may be ignored currently, but that's up to the search engine implementor to decide what data it will use and how.
> In the example below, the search engine will likely simply ignore the > 'delivery method' property.
> guha
>> For example, you can use the shipping information property from >> GoodRelations in combination with http://schema.org/Offer:
>> <!-- on the offer page, indicate this delivery option --> >> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemid="#offer"> >> <div itemprop="name">Hepp Technology Color TV</div> >> <div itemprop="description">This TV set is the ideal multimedia center >> for your home</div> >> Delivery: >> <a itemprop="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#availableDeliveryMethods" >> href="hhttp://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#UPS">via UPS</a> >> <!-- other offer properties follow here --> >> ... >> </div>
>> Martin
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 9:44 AM, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote:
>> > It's OK, Shawn. The extension mechanism of schema.org indicates >> > that by following naming convention you can define microdata feasible. >> > And a missing part is how extractors fetch those things exceeding >> > the domain of schema.org properties and types. For an item, if its >> > extending properties can be fetched correctly as well as its canonical >> > properties, it does not matter that what properties should be listed as >> > canonical. However if all things and properties are arbitrary, it's not >> > easy to catch meanings of those things for higher-level systems. >> > Thus, it's a reason I understand that every item of every type allows >> > custom properties while it expects some canonical properties.
>> > On extended properties, how is it explained by higher systems? >> > It's my question.
>> > /yhh
>> > On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:58:51 AM UTC+8, Shawn Simister wrote: >> > Sorry for any confusion. I see what you mean about those custom >> properties not being part of the schema.org vocabulary. All I meant was >> to show examples of schema.org microdata being used on real live >> websites.
>> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> > I've been following the daily disgests and admit that I do not >> > understand why Shawn cites http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections as >> > 'good' usage.
>> > It starts by using >> > <div class="content" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ >> > CreativeWork">
>> > but then allocates a number of itemprops that I cannot see as being >> > valid
>> > We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it >> > would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to >> > implement the necessary code with any success.
>> > I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively >> > for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer >> > websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information >> > listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however >> > these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and >> > defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
>> > On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote: >> > > You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
>> > Developer Programs Engineer >> > Google, San Francisco >> > http://freebase.com
>> -------------------------------------------------------- >> martin hepp >> e-business & web science research group >> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
We just want to make it clear that a webmaster cannot expect that any and every property that is used will be interpreted the way they (or the schema developer) intends for it to be interpreted.
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Martin Hepp <mfh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All:
>>> As long as you use full URIs for additional properties, there should be >>> no problem for search engines to properly fetch and interpret them.
>> I want to be clear about this --- search engines cannot be expected to >> 'correctly' interpret arbitrary properties they do not know anything about, >> irrespective of whether you use full URIs, namespaces, curies or whatever >> else.
> GoodRelations <http://www.goodrelations-vocabulary.org> is an established > vocabulary, parts of which are already supported and utilized by major > search engines. The property > http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#availableDeliveryMethods is certainly not > an arbitrary property. It may be ignored currently, but that's up to the > search engine implementor to decide what data it will use and how.
> Las
>> In the example below, the search engine will likely simply ignore the >> 'delivery method' property.
>> guha
>>> For example, you can use the shipping information property from >>> GoodRelations in combination with http://schema.org/Offer:
>>> <!-- on the offer page, indicate this delivery option --> >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemid="#offer"> >>> <div itemprop="name">Hepp Technology Color TV</div> >>> <div itemprop="description">This TV set is the ideal multimedia center >>> for your home</div> >>> Delivery: >>> <a itemprop="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#availableDeliveryMethods" >>> href="hhttp://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#UPS">via UPS</a> >>> <!-- other offer properties follow here --> >>> ... >>> </div>
>>> Martin
>>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 9:44 AM, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote:
>>> > It's OK, Shawn. The extension mechanism of schema.org indicates >>> > that by following naming convention you can define microdata feasible. >>> > And a missing part is how extractors fetch those things exceeding >>> > the domain of schema.org properties and types. For an item, if its >>> > extending properties can be fetched correctly as well as its canonical >>> > properties, it does not matter that what properties should be listed as >>> > canonical. However if all things and properties are arbitrary, it's not >>> > easy to catch meanings of those things for higher-level systems. >>> > Thus, it's a reason I understand that every item of every type allows >>> > custom properties while it expects some canonical properties.
>>> > On extended properties, how is it explained by higher systems? >>> > It's my question.
>>> > /yhh
>>> > On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:58:51 AM UTC+8, Shawn Simister wrote: >>> > Sorry for any confusion. I see what you mean about those custom >>> properties not being part of the schema.org vocabulary. All I meant was >>> to show examples of schema.org microdata being used on real live >>> websites.
>>> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> > I've been following the daily disgests and admit that I do not >>> > understand why Shawn cites http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections as >>> > 'good' usage.
>>> > It starts by using >>> > <div class="content" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ >>> > CreativeWork">
>>> > but then allocates a number of itemprops that I cannot see as being >>> > valid
>>> > We are now more than a month into the schema.org initiative and it >>> > would appear that there is still considerable confusion as to how to >>> > implement the necessary code with any success.
>>> > I'm still at a loss as to how to implement schema tagging effectively >>> > for real estate listings and do not wish to have to recode customer >>> > websites multiple times to get it right. To get all the information >>> > listed, I need to use Product, Place, LocalBusiness and Offer however >>> > these types would only appear to be available using CreativeWork and >>> > defining a house as CreativeWork just doesn't seem right.
>>> > On Jul 10, 9:35 am, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote: >>> > > You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
>>> > Developer Programs Engineer >>> > Google, San Francisco >>> > http://freebase.com
>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> e-business & web science research group >>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
Great to see museums exploring this. I was just talking with colleagues about how schema.org fits in alongside cultural heritage metadata. For example http://schema.org/Painting is a little erm sparse compared to some of the controlled vocabularies that have been used for describing art, museum objects etc.
Is there some potential role for Freebase here, bridging the medium-sized schema.org vocabulary with much larger, community-curated efforts? Where do SKOS and thesauri, subject classification etc fit into the schema.org picture for describing cultural heritage?
> Great to see museums exploring this. I was just talking with > colleagues about how schema.org fits in alongside cultural heritage > metadata. For example http://schema.org/Painting is a little erm > sparse compared to some of the controlled vocabularies that have been > used for describing art, museum objects etc.
> Is there some potential role for Freebase here, bridging the > medium-sized schema.org vocabulary with much larger, community-curated > efforts? Where do SKOS and thesauri, subject classification etc fit > into the schema.org picture for describing cultural heritage?
> cheers,
> Dan
Thanks Dan, I'm pretty excited about the possibility of getting more of this cultural heritage stuff available as structured data.
We've talked about getting this all modeled and loaded into Freebase but it seems like Microdata is the easiest win right now because:
1. It allows each institution to determine which extensions best model their data and not have to refactor all their data to fit the Freebase schema or agree on one unifying schema right out of the gate. 2. It lets the institutions host the metadata on their own sites so that they get the search visibility rather than Freebase. 3. It doesn't force these institutions to address the difficult task of reconciling their data against Freebase as a pre-condition to publishing structured data.
Ideally, once enough cultural institutions are publishing metadata like this, there will be some obvious areas where they can start promoting common extensions to schema.org and then we can make sure that the Freebase schema can accommodate that data and start reconciling everything together.
I'm obviously a huge advocate of all things Freebase but first and foremost I want to see more structured data on the web and I see schema.org as a really simple way of making that happen.
> I'm obviously a huge advocate of all things Freebase but first and > foremost I want to see more structured data on the web and I see > schema.org <http://schema.org> as a really simple way of making that > happen.
Yes!
I encourage you to bottle the statement: "I want to see more structured data on the web" . It should be your tag line re. purpose of schema.org esp. as it relates to the strategic goals of its principals.
If you visit the site every different category (Music, Film, TV, and
Books) all use Schema.org microdata in reviews. I do hope it is
implemented correctly.
On Jul 8, 12:55 am, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 05:47, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) wrote:
> > Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with
> > schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections
> > or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or
> > other vocabulary systems?
> If you visit the site every different category (Music, Film, TV, and > Books) all use Schema.org microdata in reviews. I do hope it is > implemented correctly.
I have just run your site through Mida and the microdata looks fine. However there is a problem with the schema.org use, which isn't really your fault. On the http://schema.org/Movie page the spec mentions using Person to describe the director, author and actors, but the examples use Person. Person doesn't exist in the full schema list, so I'm guessing that this was done in error. If I were you, I would wrap each person in the http://schema.org/Person vocabulary, as properties can take multiple values without problem.
I have left feedback about this problem at schema.org (Along with many other problems; I hope they are not getting sick of hearing from me!)
As I side note, have you ever thought about giving the reviews a numerical rating? The reason I say, is that when the reviews appear in the search results. Those that have had the rating picked out and displayed as stars, really do stand out.
-- vLife Systems Ltd Registered Office: The Meridian, 4 Copthall House, Station Square, Coventry, CV1 2FL Registered in England and Wales No. 06477649 http://vlifesystems.com
<g9414002.pccu.edu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with
> schema.org. Is there any idea about providing collections
> or hubs for demonstration of microdata with schema.org or
> other vocabulary systems?
-----Original Message-----
From: schemaorg-discussion@googlegroups.com [mailto:schemaorg-discussion@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:25 PM
To: Schema.org Discussion
Subject: Re: How About Examples
On Jul 7, 11:47 pm, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang) <g9414002.pccu.edu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with schema.org. > Is there any idea about providing collections or hubs for > demonstration of microdata with schema.org or other vocabulary > systems?
> -----Original Message----- > From: schemaorg-discussion@googlegroups.com [mailto:schemaorg-discussion@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:25 PM > To: Schema.org Discussion > Subject: Re: How About Examples
> On Jul 7, 11:47 pm, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang)<g9414002.pccu.edu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello, everyone! Users and newbies are coming to play with schema.org. >> Is there any idea about providing collections or hubs for >> demonstration of microdata with schema.org or other vocabulary >> systems?
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying about Person. All
the people are surrounded by things like <... itemprop="director"
itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/People"> then <span
itemprop="name"> like on the http://schema.org/Movie example.
As for the numeric rating, while it would be a positive for search
engines, it's just not how the site is meant to be used. The reviews
are meant more as general guides to good things and bad things about
each item reviewed and is less "black and white" I guess would be the
best way to put it. It is something I have been putting more thought
into though as I do like the way the Google Rich Snippets display
stars.
On Jul 12, 1:45 am, Lawrence Woodman <lwood...@vlifesystems.com>
wrote:
> > If you visit the site every different category (Music, Film, TV, and
> > Books) all use Schema.org microdata in reviews. I do hope it is
> > implemented correctly.
> I have just run your site through Mida and the microdata looks fine.
> However there is a problem with the schema.org use, which isn't
> really your fault. On thehttp://schema.org/Moviepage the spec
> mentions using Person to describe the director, author and actors, but
> the examples use Person. Person doesn't exist in the full schema list,
> so I'm guessing that this was done in error. If I were you, I would wrap
> each person in thehttp://schema.org/Personvocabulary, as properties
> can take multiple values without problem.
> I have left feedback about this problem at schema.org (Along with many
> other problems; I hope they are not getting sick of hearing from me!)
> As I side note, have you ever thought about giving the reviews a
> numerical rating? The reason I say, is that when the reviews appear
> in the search results. Those that have had the rating picked out and
> displayed as stars, really do stand out.
> --
> vLife Systems Ltd
> Registered Office: The Meridian, 4 Copthall House, Station Square, Coventry, CV1 2FL
> Registered in England and Wales No. 06477649http://vlifesystems.com
> I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying about Person. All > the people are surrounded by things like<... itemprop="director" > itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/People"> then<span > itemprop="name"> like on the http://schema.org/Movie example.
What I'm saying is that I think the example on the site is wrong. If you go to http://schema.org/People it doesn't exist and the only reference to it is in examples, but nowhere is it defined.
http://schema.org/People would be inconsistent with the rest of the schemas, since as far I have noticed there are no other schemas there just to pluralize others. I therefore think that it was probably in an earlier revision of the definitions, that was left in by accident in the example.
I hope that helped a little.
-- vLife Systems Ltd Registered Office: The Meridian, 4 Copthall House, Station Square, Coventry, CV1 2FL Registered in England and Wales No. 06477649 http://vlifesystems.com
