5 ms·
Spent time with schema.org years ago. It's just not needed/useful for most scenarios and the amount of work and convincing most groups to use it isn't worthwhil
by dbish 6y ago
Spent time with schema.org years ago. It's just not needed/useful for most scenarios and the amount of work and convincing most groups to use it isn't worthwhile so continuing to extend it isn't worth the effort.
- jshen 6y agoNot needed nor useful for who? It’s obviously useful for a more robust and open web, for our collective society, so I’m not sure who the subject of your statement is.
- whbrown 6y agoNot to be curt, but it clearly isn't obviously useful—otherwise the project wouldn't be languishing such as it is. The notion of creating a single overarching conceptual map to regulate the representation of the varied manifold of human experience on the web is almost certainly a deeply misguided idea, and even if it's philosophically sound (a big if), it's not clear that schema is anything like the correct approach. I'm open to be convinced of it's value if you'd like to elaborate, but I'll just say its far from obvious.
- jshen 6y agoAh, I think we might be talking about different things. I think the larger promise of the semantic web is a categorically different thing than adding a bit of meta data to pages to know basic things like author, content type, description, etc. It’s the latter I think is clearly valuable, in order for us to have competition for the likes of google and Facebook. It lowers the barrier for creating competing search engines, modern rss readers, and even things like distributed social networks.