Slashdot Mirror

In an attempt to deliver per your specification, please check this out: http://schema.org/JobPosting

the semantic HTML tags are less than useless, because they're based on a now obsolete statistical analysis of common ids/classes.

Schema.org does much the same thing, labelling headers, footers, navigation etc.

I believe Mr Hickson used to work for Google, perhaps the HTML5 semantic tags were just a search engine wishlist, that they've now decided to push via schema.org?

Three alternatives to RDF used by Google:

http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/index.html
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/05/introducing-rich-snippets.html
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/05/12/google-support-rdfa-and-microformats/
http://schema.org/

Microsoft uses OData as well as Schema:

http://www.odata.org/

OWL is a way to write schemas, making the logical alternative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDF_Schema

Popular schemas include everything in this list. Schemas are not necessarily compatible and tools are usually written for a specific schema.

http://139.91.183.30:9090/RDF/Examples.html

XML has all kinds of extras - XML-RPC, for example. A list of XML markup languages at Wikipedia suggests there are waaaaaaay too many. There are even two different competing standards for marking up web pages for search engines (besides the archaic metatags) - Schema, a Google/Microsoft invention, and DublinCore, invented by everyone else and a kitchen sink. Of course, XML isn't the only meta-language these days. RDF is the basis for SparQL - the W3C's answer to Cold Fusion.

The entire point of HTML was that it was simple. A billion custom standards, many of which require some sort of library or other handler specifically for them, isn't simple. I'm not clear that any of them provide anything that cannot be provided more efficiently, more effectively and in a more distributed/cloud-friendly manner using servers and utilities that have been around longer, been tested more thoroughly and are genuinely "enterprise-ready" (which I'll take to mean Mr Spock wouldn't object to installing it).

The latter implies the former. I say go right back to XHTML 1.0 Strict (the last standard that didn't have a broken DTD) and concentrate on finally getting all the browsers to better implement SGML. For example, all of the itemprop, itemscope, and itemtype crap could be done better with processing instructions (say, pop an <?itemscope ?> tag thing and poof, done), without fucking up the markup. schema.org is trying (among other things, I guess) to help search engines better understand the page,* and PIs were made to tell applications how to process data, so it's a matter of getting them to play The Dating Game and meet.

Stop making HTML harder to validate and process, and start making browsers better conform--and developers more completely use--the many existing features in it and its underlying SGML or XML. That's Allstat^Wgame kid's stand.

*"However, the HTML tag doesn't give any information about what that text string means—"Avatar" could refer to the a hugely successful 3D movie, or it could refer to a type of profile picture—and this can make it more difficult for search engines to intelligently display relevant content to a user."

At least now we'll have a consistent way of marking up dry cleaning and volcanoes.

At least now we'll have a consistent way of marking up dry cleaning and volcanoes.

Terms of service

This is a contract between you and each of the sponsors of Schema.org: Google, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively in this agreement as the "Sponsors", "we" or "us"). By using the Schema.org website (the "Website") you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (the "Terms of Service").

Changes in Website and Terms and Conditions; Change in Schema

We may modify or terminate the Website, for any reason, and without notice. We also reserve the right to modify these Terms of Service from time to time without notice, and you expressly agree to be bound by such modifications when posted on the Website.

This legalese basically says: By using the schema.org website, (esp. their schemas) you agree to whatever we want forever. THE END.

Even Facebook's horrid TOS agreement is better for you than this, at least you can terminate Facebook's agreement.

I for one rebel against our Gigantic Corporate Lawyer-wielding privacy-and-competition-hating overlords. If I can't get past the TOS page, I'll just stick to RDFa. Just added "0.0.0.0 schema.org" to my hosts file just in case I get link-baited into agreeing to that evil evil evil TOS.