Google isn't yet parsing RDFa. Dan Brickley just confirmed this for me, saying "it's being looked into plenty seriously. i can't promise any schedule (any more than the WG can) and of course there are various things parsing earlier rdfa 1.0 idioms".

Honestly, it upsets me that this has been made less than clear to users. I think that we should let the merits of the technology stand on their own and not be less than honest about what results people can see from them.

I feel bad that I have been inadvertently complicit in misleading users, who will spend hours trying to figure this technology out without realizing it won't give them the intended benefit. I would greatly appreciate it if you would make the real benefits clear.

Comments

scor’s picture

scor commented

The general statement "Google isn't yet parsing RDFa" is inaccurate. You very well Lin that Google has been parsing RDFa since 2009. The testing tool started to display Rich Snippet with the schema.org namespace in RDFa in September 2011 (maybe before, but that's as early as I noticed it). If you make a typo in the namespace it won't work, that shows it was intentional from their part to enable the schema.org namespace support.

You should have put Danbri's response into context. Your question was "is Google parsing RDFa at this point for Schema.org stuff? \cc danbri". I would need to check with Danbri, but I bet he understood this in the context of the new RDFa 1.1 Lite syntax that the schema.org sponsors agreed to support. This syntax recently went into last call and people are just starting to upgrade their parsers (including Google). I believe that's what Danbri was referring too.

I've added this note regarding syntax on the project page:

The syntax generated by this module is RDFa 1.0, which has been supported by Google since 2009. This module will be updated to the RDFa 1.1 Lite syntax as soon as it becomes stable and supported by the schema.org sponsors. If your application requires the use of microdata, please check out the microdata module.

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) commented

I don't believe that Google is supporting RDFa for Schema.org at this point. When they announced Schema.org, they made it explicit that they would continue supporting RDFa for Data Vocabulary but had no plans to support RDFa for Schema.org. Since this module is specifically placing Schema.org terms, it doesn't matter that it works with the Data Vocabulary.

As you point out, you found that the testing tool supported RDFa in September 2011. As you also might note, I retweeted that tweet. In addition, you could note that Guha, the driving force behind Schema.org, said the following the next month:

But the bottom line remains that as long as the error rate in RDFa usage does not go down dramatically, it is not a viable option for us.

And YOU know this very well. Because I have pointed it out to you before.

Now Dan Brickley says that they are working on it. In this, the full context, I take it to mean exactly what he said... that they are working on it. That doesn't mean that it is implemented or that it is even going to happen.

I find what you added to the project page to be even worse than the original, implicit implication that the module will produce Rich Snippets in Google.

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) commented

The only way to know conclusively would be to have confirmation from Google's team. However, a report from an implementer using RDFa:

  • I've had a couple cases of http://schema.org marked up content types that worked with the snippet test tool but not live search link
  • @scorlosquet @linclark I haven't checked since Dec. Items showed up in search results, but without the fancy formatting. Will test again. link
  • @scorlosquet @linclark This page is an example uwaterloo.ca/environment/pe… Test with snippet tool and it works, search for it in google & no dice link
  • @scorlosquet @linclark So if I search for it by pasting the body text into google, it comes up 3rd, but looks the same as the other results link

I've heard reports from implementers using microdata saying it takes between 2-3 weeks.

As I said above this is in no way conclusive. However, barring proof otherwise it provides weak confirmation for my understanding.

scor’s picture

scor commented
Title: Clarify that this module won't get Google Rich Snippets » Clarify whether this module can produce live Google Rich Snippets
Status: Active » Fixed

I've just updated the project page with a few live search results powered by 100% schema.org+RDFa 1.0:
- Event: World Women's Curling Championships 2013
- Listing of events
- Recipe

I've also created a new section to explain the situation re. syntaxes (with a link to the microdata module:

The syntax generated by this module is the one of Drupal 7 core: RDFa 1.0. Note that this syntax is not officially supported by schema.org, which only supports microdata and soon the upcoming RDFa 1.1 Lite syntax. If you prefer to use microdata, please see the Drupal microdata module.

RDFa 1.0 has been supported by Google since 2009 for the first version of its Rich Snippets and its Data Vocabulary. Although this is not documented anywhere, Google recently started to show Rich Snippets for schema.org/RDFa in its testing tool (example) and in live search results (example). This module relies on this non official feature while transiting from RDFa 1.0 to RDFa 1.1. This module will be updated as this syntax becomes stable and supported by the schema.org sponsors.

I hope that clarifies some of the confusion which have spread in this thread.

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) commented

Yes, I believe that is an accurate statement. Thank you for making sure the current status is clear to users.

It is also interesting that there are now examples of pages that do have live Rich Snippets based only on Schema.org placed with RDFa, this makes me feel much more comfortable about the module's promises.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.