[Bibjson-dev] Schema.org

Tue Jun 7 20:52:19 UTC 2011

* [2011-06-07 13:12:22 -0700] Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.Berkeley.EDU> écrit:

] Right,  but this cartel provides real incentives for adoption for the standard. I am not aware 
] of any incentives to export RDFa.

The cartel could have (and probably should have except that Google
wants to fight with Facebook) just used RDFa like Yahoo wanted instead
of making their own thing. It would have accomplished the same. So now
we have very similar but not-quite-compatible open standards
vs. closed standards situation.

] I think it is important for BibJSON/BibServer/SchHTML to be
] responsive to whatever emerging standards there are, to promote
] release and processing of biblio data subject to those standards, 
] and to find incentives for people to do that.  The most obvious
] incentive to providing well structured data is for it to be well
] harvested and indexed by search engines. 

Certainly agree, but we'll see how this shakes out. As I said,
they have all supported a number of ways of doing this for a while
(and almost nobody has used them partly because there's a difficult
and long process to get your site whitelisted as a source of such
data) so in that sense there isn't much new here.

In the sense of chosing this way or that way of publishing 
structured data, for now we still have a choice but the closed
standards people are trying to force things. The wider community
(including everybody on this list and associated with OKF etc) 
probably shouldn't just swallow it just because Google tells 
us to.

Cheers,
-w

-- 
William Waites                <mailto:ww at styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww at styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45