schema.org - anything here for us?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

schema.org - anything here for us?

David Gerard-2
http://schema.org/

An initiative by Google, Yahoo and Bing to make a tag language to make
things more findable in search engines.

Is there anything in this for us? schema.org tags in templates?
Presumably this would require software work too, and require us to
cross levels between software and content, at least a little ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: schema.org - anything here for us?

Mono mium
I saw that as well - we ought to create documentation for writing
infoboxes and contact Google about using our content more effectively.
We have a great deal of stuff that could improve search results.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://schema.org/
>
> An initiative by Google, Yahoo and Bing to make a tag language to make
> things more findable in search engines.
>
> Is there anything in this for us? schema.org tags in templates?
> Presumably this would require software work too, and require us to
> cross levels between software and content, at least a little ...
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: schema.org - anything here for us?

Paul Houle
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
  On 6/3/2011 4:02 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://schema.org/
>
> An initiative by Google, Yahoo and Bing to make a tag language to make
> things more findable in search engines.
>
> Is there anything in this for us? schema.org tags in templates?
> Presumably this would require software work too, and require us to
> cross levels between software and content, at least a little ...
>
     Note that much of this kind of information is already harvested
from Wikipedia by DBpedia and Freebase so most of the issues involved
have already been hashed out in that context.  In fact,  Wikipedia
already provides the core of a knowledge base that people use to work
with this sort of data.

     Schema.org covers a few web-specific topics such as template
marking and a little bit of SIOC-like differentiation of different types
of web pages.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: schema.org - anything here for us?

David Gerard-2
On 3 June 2011 21:29, Paul Houle <[hidden email]> wrote:

>     Note that much of this kind of information is already harvested
> from Wikipedia by DBpedia and Freebase so most of the issues involved
> have already been hashed out in that context.  In fact,  Wikipedia
> already provides the core of a knowledge base that people use to work
> with this sort of data.


The nice thing is that if it works through microformats, a lot of the
Wikipedias' templates already do those. Software massaging may still
be needed to make it glitch-free. But having an actual (rather than
hypothetical) consumer for the data is a very nice incentive to get it
all in order.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: schema.org - anything here for us?

Aryeh Gregor
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:02 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://schema.org/
>
> An initiative by Google, Yahoo and Bing to make a tag language to make
> things more findable in search engines.
>
> Is there anything in this for us? schema.org tags in templates?
> Presumably this would require software work too, and require us to
> cross levels between software and content, at least a little ...

Using schema.org would require $wgAllowMicrodataAttributes to be
enabled.  We had a long discussion here about this in January 2010:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-January/046382.html

The conclusion wound up being (committed by me and OK'd by Tim, no
code review comments):

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/61985

"""
Disable RDFa/microdata by default

It's not clear we want these as an input format, per wikitech-l
discussion. We don't want to allow them if we're not sure, because once
we allow them we can't disable them without breaking things.
"""

Personally, I think schema.org is a good reason to enable microdata
and not RDFa by default.  All of these formats explicitly support only
microdata, not RDFa or microformats.  But of course, I thought that's
what we should do back in 2010 too, so I'm not going to commit
anything unless everyone seems to agree.  I'm particularly interested
in what Daniel thinks, since he was the one who committed RDFa
support.

(Of course, $wgAllowMicrodataAttributes currently only works if
$wgHtml5 is true, which it isn't on Wikipedia.  That's been discussed
here before, and I don't have the time to pursue it, but it really
does have to be fixed someday.)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:44 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The nice thing is that if it works through microformats, a lot of the
> Wikipedias' templates already do those. Software massaging may still
> be needed to make it glitch-free. But having an actual (rather than
> hypothetical) consumer for the data is a very nice incentive to get it
> all in order.

It doesn't work through micro*formats*, which is abusing preexisting
HTML attributes like title and class to have special meaning.
Microformats and RDFa are no longer supported for new schema.org
schemas going forward, as the announcement says.  It works through
micro*data*, which is a new set of attributes devised in the last few
years as part of HTML5.  Microdata does not work in MediaWiki unless
$wgAllowMicrodataAttributes is set to true -- the attributes will be
stripped from input, since they're unrecognized.  (RDFa is similar to
microformats in that way.)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l