6 thoughts on “Where does schema.org fit in the (semantic) web?

  1. Thanks, Phil, that’s useful. you haven’t said anything different, but still it might be useful to clarify that schema.org is often used with microdata, and have been designed as part of the same overall initiative (if I am not mistaken), but they are logically independent. It *is* true to say that microdata and RDFa are slightly different ways of doing almost the same thing.

    Schema.org gives a vocabulary, endorsed by the big search engine companies, that can be used by microdata (by original design) and also RDFa (because they wanted RDFa to be able to use the same terms).

    Hope that is helpful to someone.

  2. Simon, yes that’s the way things are shaping up. As it was originally published, schema.org was a profile of microdata, that is it was a subset of the microdata syntax plus a vocabulary/ontology of itemtypes and item properties. RDFa (specifically RDFa 1.1 Lite) provides an alternative syntax, which helps trans-syntax interoperability and also helps those who want to use the schema.org vocabulary but not be limited by it. However, at least as they stand now, the Google webmaster support pages for rich snippets are still littered with references to microdata being the preferred option.

  3. Thanks Phil, it’s really useful to clarify the relationship between schema.org, microdata and RDFa.

  4. Providing an UNIQUE vocabulary for semantic annotations is a great step forward because it allows much more applications. Semantic services with SPARQL endpoints will have far more usage as many such services will be based on schema.org vocabulary making easy for developers to mash-up them

Comments are closed.