Based on the Microdata example in http://schema.org/HowTo and extrapolating syntax from the Microdata vs RDFa example in http://schema.org/hasOfferCatalog (there seem to be so few actual examples of RDFa to find?), I put together something like so:
<main vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="HowTo">
<h1><span property="name">How to do the Hokey Pokey</span></h1>
<ol property="steps">
<li property="itemListElement" typeof="HowToStep">
<img alt="step 1" src="step1.jpg" align="left">
<p property="itemListElement" typeof="HowToDirection">
put your left hand in</p></li>
<li property="itemListElement" typeof="HowToStep">
<img alt="step 2" src="step2.jpg" align="left">
<p property="itemListElement" typeof="HowToDirection">
put your left hand out</p></li>
But, when put into Google's Structured Data Testing Tool, I get:
The property itemListElement is not recognized by Google for an object of type HowTo.
Yandex's validator also says:
WARNING: http://schema.org/itemListElement field not specified in http://schema.org/HowTo
What am I doing wrong?
You missed to specify the HowToSection (or HowToStep) type as value for the steps property.
The Microdata example uses:
<div id="steps" itemprop="steps" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/HowToSection">
The equivalent RDFa would be:
<div id="steps" property="steps" typeof="HowToSection">
If you aren’t providing an ItemList/CreativeWork value for the steps property, you are providing a Text value (this is what you are doing in your example markup). But you can’t add properties (like itemListElement) to a Text value.
Related
I'd like to mark my list of acronyms/abbreviations in my glossary of my website with Schema.org (using Microdata).
Which type of Schema.org is the right one for that?
I can't find any related type in the full list on schema.org.
The type DefinedTerm (which is currently in Pending, so it’s subject to change) is suitable for a
word, name, acronym, phrase, etc. with a formal definition
In a glossary, you would use the name property for the term, and the description property for what the term stands for.
<p itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/DefinedTerm">
<span itemprop="name">SO</span>:
<span itemprop="description">Stack Overflow</span>
</p>
Or with semantic markup:
<dl>
<div itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/DefinedTerm">
<dt itemprop="name"><dfn><abbr>SO</abbr></dfn></dt>
<dd itemprop="description">Stack Overflow</dd>
</div>
</dl>
(For the whole glossary, you could use the type DefinedTermSet, and add each entry with the property inDefinedTermSet.)
I have a table containing some properties of a city. The city is part of a larger area, so I want to add the property containedIn. However, I also want to indicate the type of that area, like "region", "province", or "state", so I am trying to add additionalProperty to these areas. I am very confused about how to do this correctly and efficiently.
This is what I have tried, but Google Structured Data Testing Tool gives two/duplicate items (and two name properties). I want to add both containedIn and additionalProperty to San Juan and San Pablo, but it seems the property name is recognized by both containedIn and additionalProperty, so I do not know how to fix it:
<div itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/City'>
<h1 itemprop='name'>San Pedro</h1>
<table>
<tr itemprop='additionalProperty' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/PropertyValue'>
<td itemprop='name'>Type</td>
<td itemprop='value'>city</td>
</tr>
<tr itemprop='additionalProperty containedIn' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/PropertyValue http://schema.org/AdministrativeArea'>
<td itemprop='name'>State</td>
<td itemprop='value'><a itemprop='url' href='#.html'><span itemprop='name'>San Juan</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr itemprop='additionalProperty containedIn' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/PropertyValue http://schema.org/AdministrativeArea'>
<td itemprop='name'>Region</td>
<td itemprop='value'><a itemprop='url' href='#.html'><span itemprop='name'>San Pablo</span></a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
Display in Google’s SDTT
The display in Google’s SDTT appears to be correct for the Microdata you provide:
If you use multiple properties to add an item, SDTT displays this item once for every property.
It’s just the way they decided to display it. They could as well have decided to display something like this instead, but they didn’t:
additionalProperty, containedIn
#type PropertyValue
#type AdministrativeArea
If you use multiple properties to add an item, and/or if this item has multiple types, you don’t add multiple/different items, it’s one and the same item.
It wouldn’t make sense that the name is only for one of the multiple types, or only for the item added by one of the multiple properties. There is only one item, with one set of properties, with multiple types, added by multiple properties.
Meaning
As far as I understand your data, you have a city (San Pedro) which is part of two administrative areas (San Juan, San Pablo).
I’m not sure it makes sense to model it so that the AdministrativeArea is also a PropertyValue. It seems to make more sense to apply the additionalProperty PropertyValue to the AdministrativeArea.
It’s not that easy within a table, so for the sake of this example, I’m using div:
<div itemprop='containedIn' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/AdministrativeArea'>
<a itemprop='url' href='#.html'><span itemprop='name'>San Juan</span></a>
<div itemprop='additionalProperty' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/PropertyValue'>
<meta itemprop='name' content='State'>
<meta itemprop='value' content='San Juan'>
</div>
</div>
Remark: using additionalType instead of additionalProperty for the "type of area"
Using additionalProperty PropertyValue to specify the type of the area is possible, but unusual. Typically actual types are used for such a purpose.
Find a type that represents the concept (e.g. "Region"), or create your own, and add it in addition to the most specific Schema.org type you can find.
In Microdata, the itemtype attribute can only take types from the same vocabulary, so you have to use the additionalType property:
<div itemprop='containedIn' itemscope itemtype='http://schema.org/AdministrativeArea'>
<a itemprop='url' href='#.html'><span itemprop='name'>San Juan</span></a>
<link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://example.com/some-vocabulary/Region">
</div>
And for the city: by using Schema.org’s City type, you already convey that it’s a city, so your additionalProperty (with type=city) seems to be superfluous. But if you want to convey some other type, you can use the same method with additionalType here, too.
Like many sites, we deliver a lot of imagery on our web site.
Use case: set up labels/refinements in Google Custom Search that aggregate and filter two different classes of image objects. Using Schema.org Microdata markup is very easy and works great, but we want the user to select either
1) PHOTOS: a "photo" is taken by with an instrument -- some kind of camera/lens "machine" that comprises something from "real life"
OR
2) ART: all other images that are creative works by an illustrator/artist: vector art, scans of drawings, scans of paintings, water colors etc.
I can easily determine which is which as our web CMS gets metadata from the database, and drives the content through the pipe and fork dynamic insertion of metadata. Something like
<section class="page-content" role="main" itemprop="image" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<meta itemprop="image" content="Red Roses" /> #art
and toggle to this if it were a photo
"itemprop="photo" content="Daffodils" # photo
But this is really not doing the job. I would expect to have some property like "imageType" that I could then apply like this
itemprop="imageType" content="photo"
itemprop="imageType" content="art"
But I don't see anything that meets this requirement in Schema.org (my eyes are bleeding from reviewing the hierarchy and still can't find what I need). There is nothing to designate "art" as such.
Any ideas?
I don’t know which features Google Custom Search supports,
but you have the following options with Schema.org and Microdata.
Unless you have to implement it right now, I recommend option b).
a) Propose new Schema.org types/properties
See my answer to another question for links.
b) Wait for an appropriate Schema.org type/property
The next Schema.org release will contain the type VisualArtwork (draft):
A work of art that is primarily visual in character.
It has an artform property (draft) that takes text or an URL as value:
e.g. Painting, Drawing, Sculpture, Print, Photograph, Assemblage, Collage, etc.
Caution notice: these are drafts, subject to change!
Update: VisualArtwork and artform got released.
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/VisualArtwork">
<meta itemprop="artform" content="Painting">
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/VisualArtwork">
<meta itemprop="artform" content="Photo">
</div>
c) Use Schema.org’s extension mechanism
The "slash-based" extension mechanism is "outdated", but valid.
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject/Photo"></div>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject/Art"></div>
I would only use this as a last resort.
d) Use an additional Schema.org type
This does not work for most cases, but it’s possible in your case: Both of your images are ImageObject, and only the photos are Photograph in addition.
The itemtype attribute can have several values as long as they are from the same vocabulary. But note that you could only use properties that are defined for all of the used types.
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<!-- art -->
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject http://schema.org/Photograph">
<!-- photo -->
</div>
e) Use a type/property from a different vocabulary
If you know/find a vocabulary about your subject/model, you can use the corresponding types as value for Schema.org’s additionalType property:
<section itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://example.com/vocabulary/photo">
</section>
<section itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://example.com/vocabulary/art">
</section>
If you find a suitable property, you may use its URL as value for itemprop:
<section itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<meta itemprop="http://example.com/vocabulary/imageType" content="photo">
</section>
<section itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<meta itemprop="http://example.com/vocabulary/imageType" content="art">
</section>
f) Use your own proprietary property
If you don’t find a suitable vocabulary, you can use your own URL as property:
[…] a proprietary item property name (i.e. one used by the author for private purposes, not defined in a public specification)
(Example like the second one in b).)
#unor
My developer told me (talking to him after I posted this) we can use (to avoid adding another meta line to the document):
<section itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject"> # for art
<section itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Photo"> # for photography
From tests I see that Google will actually parse this: its structured data previewer show it is being extracted. (though it's structured data preview may throw an error). As such I could use it in a custom search refinement/label.
But, it seems wrong to me from the schema.org standard -- since both classes of
images:(photos),(paintings,drawings,vector)
are all "ImageObjects"
According to the documentation (http://schema.org/Thing), the item type Thing cannot include a Place.
The users will be asked to add content that does not have a specific type, therefore everything falls back to Thing. So, suppose the following example. This is want I would like to have, but seems to be invalid. Is there a workaround to fix it?
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Thing">
<span itemprop="name">Eiffel Tower</span>
<span itemprop="description">Sample description</span>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Place">
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress">
<span itemprop="streetAddress">Sample address</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Your example snippet is valid.
Simply nesting elements with itemscope/itemtype has no effect on the parsed Microdata. You have to use the itemprop attribute if you want to associate/relate the items.
So in your example, you have three items (Thing, Place, PostalAddress) which are not related in any way.
If your question is, "Has Thing a property which allows a value of Place?", the answer is no, there is no such property.
The best solution would be to have the user choose what "type" of thing they are submitting and map those to schema.org types.
E.g. if you had a drop-down list on the form they use to submit listing "CD", "Event", "Place", etc. and use the value from that form field to set the value of the main itemtype.
I'm trying to markup an article and confused as to how to use the about property (from CreativeWork).
http://schema.org/about
My guess is that it can be used like this...
<p itemprop="about">Short text about the article...</p>
But on schema.org it says that the expected type is Thing so I'm not sure what I should be inserting inside the itemprop="about" tag; I can't find any examples of the about property in use.
Can anyone help and provide an example?
When using Microdata, the syntax would look like:
<p itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Thing">
…
</p>
(Instead of Thing, you could use a more specific type.)
Now you can use properties for this Thing, for example giving it a name, sameAs to link to the corresponding Wikipedia page, and description for a short description:
<p itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Thing">
<span itemprop="description">A <span itemprop="name">Bee</span> is a flying insect.</span>
<link itemprop="sameAs" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee" />
</p>