Thursday, June 02, 2011 at 12:10 AM
Webmaster Level: AllToday we’re announcing schema.org, a new initiative from Google, Bing and Yahoo! to create and support a common set of schemas for structured data markup on web pages. Schema.org aims to be a one stop resource for webmasters looking to add markup to their pages to help search engines better understand their websites.
At Google, we’ve supported structured markup for a couple years now. We introduced rich snippets in 2009 to better represent search results describing people or containing reviews. We’ve since expanded to new kinds of rich snippets, including products, events, recipes, and more.

Example of a rich snippet: a search result enhanced by structured markup. In this case, the rich snippet contains a picture, reviews, and cook time for the recipe.
Adoption by the webmaster community has grown rapidly, and today we’re able to show rich snippets in search results more than ten times as often as when we started two years ago.
We want to continue making the open web richer and more useful. We know that it takes time and effort to add this markup to your pages, and adding markup is much harder if every search engine asks for data in a different way. That’s why we’ve come together with other search engines to support a common set of schemas, just as we came together to support a common standard for Sitemaps in 2006. With schema.org, site owners can improve how their sites appear in search results not only on Google, but on Bing, Yahoo! and potentially other search engines as well in the future.
Now let’s discuss some of the details of schema.org relevant to you as a webmaster:
1) Schema.org contains a lot of new markup types.
We’ve added more than 100 new types as well as ported over all of the existing rich snippets types. If you’ve looked at adding rich snippets markup before but none of the existing types were relevant for your site, it’s worth taking another look. Here are a few popular types:
- Creative works: CreativeWork, Book, Movie, MusicRecording, Recipe, TVSeries
- Embedded non-text objects: AudioObject, ImageObject, VideoObject
- Event
- Organization
- Person
- Place, LocalBusiness, Restaurant
- Product, Offer, AggregateOffer
- Review, AggregateRating
2) Schema.org uses microdata.
Historically, we’ve supported three different standards for structured data markup: microdata, microformats, and RDFa. We’ve decided to focus on just one format for schema.org to create a simpler story for webmasters and to improve consistency across search engines relying on the data. There are arguments to be made for preferring any of the existing standards, but we’ve found that microdata strikes a balance between the extensibility of RDFa and the simplicity of microformats, so this is the format that we’ve gone with.
To get an overview of microdata as well as the conventions followed by schema.org, take a look at the schema.org Getting Started guide.
3) We’ll continue to support our existing rich snippets markup formats.
If you’ve already done markup on your pages using microformats or RDFa, we’ll continue to support it. One caveat to watch out for: while it’s OK to use the new schema.org markup or continue to use existing microformats or RDFa markup, you should avoid mixing the formats together on the same web page, as this can confuse our parsers.
4) Test your markup using the rich snippets testing tool.
It’s very useful to test your web pages with markup to make sure we’re able to parse the data correctly. As with previous rich snippets markup formats, you should use the rich snippets testing tool for this purpose. Note that while the testing tool will show the marked up information that was parsed from the page, rich snippets previews are not yet shown for schema.org markup. We’ll be adding this functionality soon.
The schema.org website and the rich snippets testing tool are in English. However, Google shows rich snippets in search results globally, so there’s no need to wait to start marking up your pages.
To learn more about rich snippets and how they relate to schema.org, check out the Rich snippets schema.org FAQ.


59 comments:
Eschewing the Microformats and RDFa open communities, inventing a proprietary format behind closed doors and then driving legitimacy using a group of incumbent vendors reminds us of how WS-* standards were developed and why they failed. This in substance and execution is a very disappointing venture which will only further fragment how data, and small semantics is encoded across the Web.
It is possible to validade one document in HTML 4 or XHTML 1 (according W3C), using microdata schema?
@psd - microdata is a proposal under HTML5. And I'm not sure where you're reading the bit about eschewing microformats and RDFa.
Steve, read what Paul said again: they eschewed "the Microformats and RDFa open communities, inventing a proprietary format behind closed doors."
Тhis is indeed very good news. Less work, better and more clear results.
@psd agreed on similarities to WS-* vendor push. I disagree with contrasting with Microformats as Microformats isn't really an open community either. It's a hand selected decision making community that has discussions in the open and publishes open specifications. Having said that, maybe schema.org and facebook should come into the w3c.
Let me remain neutral about the RDFa vs. Microdata politics. Yet it's sad to see schema.org's intention to be the only single schema repository, which is too centralized. If that's the case, why bother to adopt Microdata and get an extra "http://schema.org/" prefix if every vocabulary will eventually be put into schema.org? A statements like "We strongly encourage schema developers to develop and evangelize their schemas. As these gain traction, we will incorporate them into schema.org." is too much like "We strongly encourage Web developers and evangelize their sites. As these gain traction, we will incorporate them into one of our Google Apps server (so you have to pay)". Some concrete suggestions as follows, ranked by priority.
1. There should be a Q&A for "Can Facebook ogp and schema.org be used together?". This is the only question Web developers care. "you should avoid mixing the formats together on the same web page" seems to imply that it is not possible.
2. The search bar in schema.org's homepage is too small. It should be in the middle like any search engine, for searching vocabulary term.
3. Perhaps schema.org should evangelize terms like "http://schema.org/domain" and index vocabularies on the Web so that schema.org can truly be a search engine for those.
That is, I still have serious doubts that schema.org could have expertise in every single domain.
It's amazing that "copyright" is missing from the schema!
Good. It is the improve of RDFa. I hope it can auto connect to the google base to improve the local business.
This is great news and a huge step forward for the Semantic Web/Web of Data.
I don't understand the fuss about Mircodata vs. RDFa.
What matters is that the Web gets more structured so that applications can do smarter things with it.
This will obviously happen as three mayor data consumers have agreed on vocabularies. Syntax is secondary.
Thus congratulation to Google, Yahoo and Microsoft.
From the DBpedia side, we will start defining owl:equivalentClass and owl: equivalentProperty mappings between the DBpedia ontology and the schema.org ontology to increase interoperability.
We might also start to publish Microdata with the next DBpedia release.
Cheers,
Chris
Better results while doing less work will allow more available time to focus on other tasks.
Overall, it's a big effort to bring all 3 major search engines to work toghether for which I congratulate you.
We shall see if this schema.org will be viable and become a standard.
Why don't you just write your own new language and dump HTML?
Why we webmaster have to dance on your tune? What is point of all these. Fist we have to write html and then add meta to adhere with search engines. This is simply rubbish and waste of time for us. You are not making web any simpler.
Damn, and I was thinking it was going to be RDFA. Time to look closer and Microdata!
Hi, I tried to use the new http://schema.org/ for my webpage.
URL - http://www.joydeepdeb.com/blog/html-5-overview.html
But when I test it in 'Google Rich Snippets Testing Tool' - I am getting the following error
The following errors were found during preview generation: Insufficient data to generate the preview.
Really love hearing explanations for Item 3. Much Thanks, Google!
"We’ll continue to support our existing rich snippets markup formats.
If you’ve already done markup on your pages using microformats or RDFa, we’ll continue to support it."
Anyone knows whether Wikipedia will also implement this type of extra layer?
Or do they never?
feed of your blog seems to be broken.
I have many entries in Google Reader thats originating from your feed but entreis is photos from http://www.joehewes.com/
My Google Reader URL with strange enties:
http://www.google.com/reader/view/#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fgooglewebmastercentral.blogspot.com%2Fatom.xml
I had exactly the same...
24 of them I thought, could be 25, flickr photos from someone with a sun called Nathan :)
Yes, I have those unrelated photos in the feed too. At least they are nice ones :)
This is really positive news for SEO developers, especially with the open graph tags keeping us busy as the web gets rapidly socialised.
FYI: we started a mapping of the terms to RDF at http://schema.rdfs.org - feel free to link to it from http://schema.org - more to come ;)
Cheers,
Michael
Looks like the implementation of Aggregate reviews is not correct:
Your testing tool states:
Item
Type: http://data-vocabulary.org/review-aggregate
rating = 8
best = 10
Warning: In order to generate a preview, at least 2 of the following fields are needed: rating, reviewer, or review date. See the reviews help page for more information
while in the documentation (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=146645#Aggregate_reviews
) there are no reviewer or review date (obvious for an aggregate review).
Any chance of a wizard or two to help the non code types get the correctly formatted data onto their web pages?
Is there an item scope for Web Series?
I still not Understand what is the work of schema??
FYI, I'm getting a lot of items in your RSS feed that don't seem to be from your blog, they seem to be coming from this blog's RSS instead, http://www.joehewes.com/2010/10/img3478jpg.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FamDG+%28Official+Google+Webmaster+Central+Blog%29
This is indeed a good news. Just in case HTML editors start supporting microformats, webmasters will be glad to accept that too...
Hello,
Just as "Cold Hawaiian" I'm also getting the same weird blog entries...Can you look into it?
Greater results while doing less work will allow more time to focus on life's other tasks my carpet cleaning company.
Can I embrace elements with a table tag rather than a div tag?
You can put your table in a seperate div. I don't know if the attributes work on table tags but I would guess they don't.
Reads like its we might be penalized if not implemented?
Good to see all these rivals at one place for the best.
Nice Post
http://topupdatesblog.blogspot.com/
Check Mine And Post Comments.
Did it work for Google.fr ?
That's cool, but how come examples from schema.org are not compatible with examples from google rich snippets, or is it outdated parser?
Is there any work occurring on a microformat for questions and answers? With the rise of Stack Overflow and many other Q&A sites (and the baffling popularity of Yahoo Answers), it is surprising not to see a schema for Q&A with rated answers. Especially since a huge amount searches are questions.
There was some discussion here: http://microformats.org/wiki/question-answer-brainstorming
Is Schema.org is planning to go to Google custom search response under
pageMap like other structured data?
wouldn't that be a lot more extra load on server and a wastage of resources as each tag will be loaded on user side too? I personally think that there should be another smart way to mention them to search engines like "sitemap.xml" - a separate sheet that user don't bother at all.
@Steven Roose
Wikipedia already uses structured data throughout the entire site. DBpedia.org extracts and makes it available to everyone.
Incidentally, DBpedia might be incorporating microdata into their site for their next update.
Ah, thanks for the reply! I e-mailed Wikipedia with the question but the person answering couldn't tell me a thing :)
I added product and manufacturer schema on this page http://designerhandle.co.uk/Designer-Handles-Designer-Handles-on-Plate/c100_101/p1196/Madrid-Handle-on-Short-Plate/product_info.html
When testing i am getting "Insufficient data to generate the preview." while the "Extracted rich snippet data from the page" is perfect.
We already have an official W3C standard for semantic information: RDFa.
What is the issue with it? Why not use it? Why not help to improve it?
I just hate it when corporations push their weight around...
And adding Microdata at the HTML5 specification is not the place nor the correct way to do this.
Nice one. It is a lot of work for all the webmasters but in future it will make the web a little bit smarter. improving semantic web is never wrong..
That's the future of search results that will look good based on the format. Congratulations for the teamwork to bing, yahoo and google!
While I think schema.org is a welcome inclusion in good SEO practice, I am still left wondering how we can really promote additions to the schema. The schema is a great foundation but it does not (deliberately) try and solve everyone's problems on day one.
I've designed an extension to the schema at http://www.tribepad.com/2011/06/schema-org-needs-a-place-for-jobs/ which is specifically to target jobs and vacancies.
My concern is, without any proper mediation, 15 or more companies could independently come up with their own extension to vacancies and then there is no SEO benefit despite the effort.
So, how exactly do people promote their extensions in the hope that it will be formally adopted?
I have to agree with the commentator that highlighted that this is not a matter of Microformatting vs. RDFa. I think webmasters have a tendency to get comfortable with the familiar, and forget to see the bigger picture.
Or should I say the bigger 'schema' of things. A little nerd humor...
hey, i just added microformat to my site, but when i try to check it via "Rich Snippets Testing Tool " i don't see any markup...
for example my page is:
http://xn--80aaac3ac2dg2i.xn--p1ai/viewAdvert.brh?id=356
what is the problem can be ?
im really fascinated that people are not that familiar with schema.org. its been around for a while
+1 @psd, well said. RDFa & microformats are valid xhtml, google & all those major search engine decided to pave their own way with microdata.
In the near future
ye shall all write Search Engine Markup Language (SEML)
microdata draft - http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
microdata neverending debate - http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
We added new product and manufacturer schema on our web page http://stylishdoorhandles.co.uk and on category pages http://stylishdoorhandles.co.uk/Door-Handles/
When testing it generates "Insufficient data to generate the preview." where as "Extracted rich snippet data from the page" is perfect.
Please help me about this errors :
In order to generate a preview with rich snippets, at least 2 of the following fields are needed: rating, reviewer, or review date. See the reviews help page for more information
What's the difference between Schema.org and data-vocabulary.org?
This schema stuff and what it does for communicating from within Google's search pages is incredible. This is the best stuff since sliced bread...realy :-)
Does it help to have a unique schema data on all pages rather than having the same data on every page. just testing it on our webpages; http://www.stylishdoorhandles.co.uk/door-knobs and http://www.stylishdoorhandles.co.uk/door-furniture
Post a Comment