A JSON-LD love letter

When I saw this summary box (bottom left) at the bottom of a recent +Bill Slawski post (http://bit.ly/1tBZ9VS) I was reminded immediately of a similar box found at the bottom of posts by +Mike Bergman on AI3 (http://bit.ly/1vR2HSP).

"A-ha!" says I, "must be a schema.org container!"  And 'tis so.

While I titled this "a JSON-LD love letter" it's really more of a plea to the search engines to figure out a way of formally accommodating - that is, officially giving the thumbs-up to - JSON-LD.

It's a nice testament to the utility of schema.org that people like Bill and Mike are going out their way to feed the beast(s) with structured data - and ironic that they're now forced to go through such contortions to do so in a way the search engines will respect when an absolutely perfect mechanism exists for the expression of linked data without requiring all these gymnastics.  Because ... inline markup.

Ironic too that the far less expressive Open Graph protocol is so much easier to employ (and so has phenomenal adoption) because its free of the inline markup requirement the search engines have bestowed on schema.org.

For most types.  But on websites, not for email.  Or Islands.  Or app indexing.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm rapidly facing a conundrum as a result of this the inline markup requirement.  As per the prior post on the analytics work being done by +Mike Arnesen I'm ready to start adding even more structured data to my web pages for reasons other than search engine benefits, and the easiest way for me to do this is with JSON-LD.  But if declare a heap o' data with JSON-LD, do I repeat select declarations inline with microdata or RDFa for on-page elements?  Or will that be seen as spammily doubling up on the entities I'm expressing?  Or will Google et al. only parse the inline markup, leaving me free to do what I want to with JSON-LD?

I know the day will come, but it just ain't comin' soon enough for this marketer!

#jsonld   #schemaorg  
Shared publiclyView activity