How About Examples

287 views
Skip to first unread message

黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang)

unread,
Jul 8, 2011, 12:47:13 AM7/8/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.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?

Dzonatas Sol

unread,
Jul 9, 2011, 8:53:59 PM7/9/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com

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.

--
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant

Dzonatas Sol

unread,
Jul 9, 2011, 10:00:01 PM7/9/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com, Dzonatas Sol
I was sent this "working" example: www.thingiverse.com/thing:9913
<http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:9913>

Add xml-entities as desired...

Shawn Simister

unread,
Jul 9, 2011, 10:35:02 PM7/9/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:

--
Shawn Simister

Developer Programs Engineer
Google, San Francisco

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Jul 10, 2011, 5:20:37 AM7/10/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On 7/10/11 3:35 AM, Shawn Simister wrote:
You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:


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?



Great!

See the following bookmarked links demonstrating Microdata extraction:

1. http://www.delicious.com/kidehen/microdata_demo



--
Shawn Simister

Developer Programs Engineer
Google, San Francisco



-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 




skygod

unread,
Jul 10, 2011, 9:59:33 PM7/10/11
to Schema.org Discussion
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

itemprop="collection"
itemprop="materials"
itemprop="dimensions"
itemprop="creditLine"
itemprop="accessionNumber"

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.

Shawn Simister

unread,
Jul 10, 2011, 10:58:51 PM7/10/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
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.

黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang)

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 3:44:04 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
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

Martin Hepp

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 4:45:37 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
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.

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

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail: he...@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp

Lawrence Woodman

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 4:54:54 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
The Mida wiki has a page that lists sites using Schema.org at:
https://github.com/LawrenceWoodman/mida/wiki/Sites-Using-Microdata

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

Michael Hausenblas

unread,
Jul 8, 2011, 12:55:16 AM7/8/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com

We collect examples in all kinds of formats via

https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/tree/master/examples

just send in a pull request ;)

Cheers,
Michael

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 8:19:54 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On 7/11/11 9:54 AM, Lawrence Woodman wrote:
> 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?
>>
> The Mida wiki has a page that lists sites using Schema.org at:
> https://github.com/LawrenceWoodman/mida/wiki/Sites-Using-Microdata
>
> It would be great if anyone wants to add any sites that they create or
> find.
>


Great!

Update my bookmark collection at:
http://www.delicious.com/kidehen/microdata_demo, accordingly :-)

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO

Guha

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 10:01:09 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
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.

guha

László Török

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 10:51:31 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com


2011/7/11 Guha <gu...@google.com>



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 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



--
László Török

Skype: laczoka2000
Twitter: @laczoka

Guha

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 11:36:49 AM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
Yes, we are saying approximately the same thing. 

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.

Guha

Dan Brickley

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 1:37:25 PM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com, simi...@google.com
On 10 July 2011 04:35, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote:
> You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
> http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections
> http://tagger.steve.museum/steve/object

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

Shawn Simister

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 2:17:47 PM7/11/11
to Dan Brickley, schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org> wrote:
On 10 July 2011 04:35, Shawn Simister <simi...@google.com> wrote:
> You can see some good usage of schema.org microdata here:
> http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections
> http://tagger.steve.museum/steve/object

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.

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 5:30:24 PM7/11/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On 7/11/11 7:17 PM, Shawn Simister wrote:
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.

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.

GOLDEN!

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

demonscars

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 10:48:09 PM7/11/11
to Schema.org Discussion
My site is using Schema.org microdata. An example page would be
http://www.mediadecay.com/movie_review/punching-the-clown/

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:

Lawrence Woodman

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 1:45:25 AM7/12/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On 12/07/11 03:48, demonscars wrote:
> My site is using Schema.org microdata. An example page would be
> http://www.mediadecay.com/movie_review/punching-the-clown/
>
> 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.

Scott

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 3:24:52 PM7/12/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I use http://schema-creator.org/ to build custom examples based on the
schema.org examples.

Scott

On Jul 7, 11:47 pm, 黃耀賢 (Yau-Hsien Huang)

Charlie Jiang

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 5:16:39 PM7/12/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
Nice.

Dzonatas Sol

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 7:54:32 PM7/12/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com, Charlie Jiang
With the announcement on Windows XP: name servers with schema weights
may assist .NET.

I do not have any obvious object file when any site like that writes
"itself" for SEO. Treat Engine Optimization for Halloween walk distance?
FUD.

demonscars

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 9:51:37 PM7/12/11
to Schema.org Discussion
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:
> On 12/07/11 03:48, demonscars wrote:> My site is using Schema.org microdata. An example page would be
> >http://www.mediadecay.com/movie_review/punching-the-clown/
>
> > 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

Lawrence Woodman

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 1:05:32 AM7/13/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On 13/07/11 02:51, demonscars wrote:
> 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.

Instead of this:

<span itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/People">
<span itemprop="name">Joe Blogs</span>
<span itemprop="name">John Doe</span>
</span>

I think you should have:

<span itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<span itemprop="name">Joe Blogs</span>
</span>

<span itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<span itemprop="name">John Doe</span>
</span>

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.

Scott

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 11:33:56 AM7/13/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I ran into that too - I assumed the name was changed along the way.
Unless there's an aggregate for Person?

On Jul 13, 12:05 am, Lawrence Woodman <lwood...@vlifesystems.com>
wrote:
> On 13/07/11 02:51, demonscars wrote:> 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 thehttp://schema.org/Movieexample.
>
> What I'm saying is that I think the example on the site is wrong.
> If you go tohttp://schema.org/Peopleit doesn't exist and the
>   only reference to it is in examples, but nowhere is it defined.
>
> Instead of this:
>
> <span itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/People">
> <span itemprop="name">Joe Blogs</span>
> <span itemprop="name">John Doe</span>
> </span>
>
> I think you should have:
>
> <span itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
> <span itemprop="name">Joe Blogs</span>
> </span>
>
> <span itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
> <span itemprop="name">John Doe</span>
> </span>
>
> http://schema.org/Peoplewould be inconsistent with the rest of the schemas,
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages