Talk:Schema.org

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance).

Are there any other citations out there that back up the statement that Schema.org is getting more traction than microformats? Both this article and the microformats article make the same claim, but in both cases, it is backed up by the same single citation: an article about the best law school home pages. I don't doubt that an initiative spearheaded by the biggest players in search could gain traction over a grassroots endeavor, but this seems like a weak source to substantiate the claim.

• It's actually quite the opposite, microformats has and continues to have more traction than schema/microdata or RDFa per research from http://webdatacommons.org/ - Tantek (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have expressed concerns about Schema.org adoption giving Google et al. undue control over what information is added as metadata: at least this blog post "Schema.org and the Responsibility of Monopoly" and comments under some posts in other blogs. See for example Metacrap, 2.5 Schemas aren't neutral. --AVRS (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, the metacrap article predates the schema.org initiative by a decade so can't really be taken as a direct criticism of it. Phil Barker 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think more could be made of the distinction between the schema ontology and the serialisation in a specific syntax. Something along the lines of:

Ontology, i.e. "a shared vocabulary to denote types of object, properties and their interrelationships". Schema has a hierarchical set of object types, each type has a set of properties that may be used to describe the key characteristics of objects of that type. Within the hierarchy each type inherits the properties of its parent type (e.g. the type Book inherits the properties of a CreativeWork). Properties may be described by a simple textual description (e.g. the title of a book) or may be a structured description of a related object (e.g. the creator of a CreativeWork is an object of type Person.

Syntax: microdata in HTML was the original preferred syntax, more recently RDFa Lite 1.1 and JSON-LD have been accepted.

If no one objects to this approach (or can improve on it) I'll have a go at getting the wording right and relating it to reliable references Phil Barker 17:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox lists W3C as one of the organizers. Although discussion of schema.org stuff takes place in W3C discussion lists this does not make W3C an organizer of schema.org, and there is no other support for this relationship. Therefore, I am taking W3C out of the list of organizers. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imikeg: edited the lead to what appears to me an acceptable length so should we removing the "lead too long" tag? - Trilotat (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intro of the article is too vague or too technical for non-IT readers. Needs revising Azuresky Voight (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks to me at this time (2024-03-17) desperately in need of update. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to do this. Help! Simon Grant (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]