From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Fri Feb 11 10:51:50 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:51:50 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] GoodRelations News Message-ID: <7B5301D1-479D-4BD7-88E3-752E34F80DB4@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: Thanks for your interest in the GoodRelations vocabulary for e-commerce. In the following, I would like to highlight a few recent developments: 1. As you likely know, Yahoo and Google are now officially recommending the use of GoodRelations in RDFa in order to provide rich site data for their index. I also heard rumors that Bing is closely monitoring this space, but they refuse to comment on it. 2. Bojan ?ivanovi? is working on a very powerful GoodRelations extension for the Drupal Commerce module; it may become available in a few weeks or so. He presented an alpha version at the Drupal Devdays in Brussels: http://bxl2011.drupaldays.org/node/293 3. There are powerful, free extensions for - Joomla/Virtuemart - Wordpress / WP4Ecommerce - Magento available at http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Shop_Software They each have 1000+ downloads already. 4. Telling the world of your GoodRelations data We are finalizing a new service that you can use to tell us and the world of your GoodRelations data / store: http://gr-notify.appspot.com/ It's not yet officially released, but if you operate a Web shop, please submit the URI of your sitemap.xml file to that service, and we will make sure that your data gets index by all major semantic services. 5. If you are offering cars, boats, bikes for sales or rental, look at the respective extension module for GoodRelations: http://purl.org/vso/ns 6. If you are offering tickets for events, points of interest, or transportation (trains, busses, flights,...) look at the respective extension module for GoodRelations: http://purl.org/tio/ns Best wishes Martin Hepp -------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp From richard.hancock at 3kbo.com Fri Feb 11 22:55:28 2011 From: richard.hancock at 3kbo.com (richard.hancock at 3kbo.com) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:55:28 -0600 Subject: [goodrelations] GoodRelations News In-Reply-To: <7B5301D1-479D-4BD7-88E3-752E34F80DB4@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <7B5301D1-479D-4BD7-88E3-752E34F80DB4@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Hi Martin, thanks for the updates. Given the expanding choices available for shop software supporting GoodRelations have any comparisons been done to help determine the best option for a given scenario, e.g. type of store, ease of ongoing administration, whether it will be a new store or adding GoodRelations RDFa to an exiting store? Also be interested in hearing of any in depth GoodRelations workshops or tutorials happening over the next six months. Cheers, Richard > Dear all: > > Thanks for your interest in the GoodRelations vocabulary for e-commerce. > In the following, I would like to highlight a few recent developments: > > 1. As you likely know, Yahoo and Google are now officially recommending > the use of GoodRelations in RDFa in order to provide rich site data for > their index. I also heard rumors that Bing is closely monitoring this > space, but they refuse to comment on it. > > 2. Bojan ??ivanovi?? is working on a very powerful GoodRelations extension > for the Drupal Commerce module; it may become available in a few weeks or > so. He presented an alpha version at the Drupal Devdays in Brussels: > > http://bxl2011.drupaldays.org/node/293 > > 3. There are powerful, free extensions for > - Joomla/Virtuemart > - Wordpress / WP4Ecommerce > - Magento > > available at > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Shop_Software > > They each have 1000+ downloads already. > > 4. Telling the world of your GoodRelations data > > We are finalizing a new service that you can use to tell us and the world > of your GoodRelations data / store: > > http://gr-notify.appspot.com/ > > It's not yet officially released, but if you operate a Web shop, please > submit the URI of your sitemap.xml file to that service, and we will make > sure that your data gets index by all major semantic services. > > 5. If you are offering cars, boats, bikes for sales or rental, look at the > respective extension module for GoodRelations: > > http://purl.org/vso/ns > > 6. If you are offering tickets for events, points of interest, or > transportation (trains, busses, flights,...) look at the respective > extension module for GoodRelations: > > http://purl.org/tio/ns > > Best wishes > > Martin Hepp > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp > twitter: mfhepp > > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > From ben at arrayx.co.uk Wed Feb 23 16:46:58 2011 From: ben at arrayx.co.uk (Ben Empson) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:46:58 -0000 Subject: [goodrelations] isVariantOf example? Message-ID: <007b01cbd370$e96aa770$bc3ff650$@arrayx.co.uk> Hi there, I need to markup a page with a product and several variants. I found this: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsVariants and this this post: http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/2010-November/000276.html which seem to be telling me that I need to be implementing the isVariantOf object property but I really can't understand how I should be doing that! If I have a product like this:
And then I have a variants table as such:
Payment method and duration Country of Delivery Edition Delivery method Price  
Quarterly Direct Debit United Kingdom UK Edition UK First Class Post £0.00 Add to basket
Credit card, 12 months subscription United Kingdom UK Edition UK First Class Post £0.00 Add to basket
How can I markup the variants table correctly relating each row to the main product? As you can see, the variant variables are Payment Method & Duration, Country of Delivery, Edition and Delivery Method. Any help appreciated :) Regards, Ben _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3461 - Release Date: 02/22/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at arrayx.co.uk Wed Feb 23 17:11:55 2011 From: ben at arrayx.co.uk (Ben Empson) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:11:55 -0000 Subject: [goodrelations] Multiple products on page Message-ID: <008001cbd374$6562ec40$3028c4c0$@arrayx.co.uk> Hi there, I'm having trouble with the Google Rich Snippets testing Tool and RDFa when I put more than 1 product on a page. Single product: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.ocsmedia. net/newSite/single.html &view= Multiple products: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.ocsmedia. net/newSite/multiple.html &view= I differentiated the offerings in the opening offering div as follows:
. The code I got directly from the generator at http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/grsnippetgen/, after you've generated a product it says: "If you have multiple products within the same web page, simply create and copy the snippet multiple times and replace all occurrences of the element #offer inside the same snippet by #offer1, #offer2, etc." - however I could not see the text #offer# in the generated code, I assumed this was a mistype and changed the #offering text instead. Any help appreciated. Regards, Ben _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3461 - Release Date: 02/22/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bstarr at ontologica.us Thu Feb 24 11:36:23 2011 From: bstarr at ontologica.us (Barbara H Starr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:36:23 -0800 Subject: [goodrelations] Fwd: Google Penalizes Overstock for Search Tactics - WSJ.com Message-ID: Hi All, I would love for you all to read the article below! It is my belief, that colleges and universities have been linked back to Overstock.com as a result of their adoption of goodrelations and rdfa for e-commerce! To hear that tOVerstsock have been penalized for this (backlinks from goodrelations adoption in effect) as a result of unethical back linking is amazing to me! (If you read the article below, it specifically cites back linking from .edu sites as a judgement for downgrading the SEO ranking of the site) I do not see any black hat tactics here! Merely academic references! Would love to hear any thoughts on the matter Here is the link to the article! And FYI, this has serious bottom line impact! The original article and citation against JC Penny was in the NY times. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162753779521700.html looking forward to your feedback regards Barbara Starr From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Thu Feb 24 12:17:08 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:17:08 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Fwd: Google Penalizes Overstock for Search Tactics - WSJ.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Barbara, Thanks for the link. As far as I understand, Google did not penalize anybody for linking to Overstock.com item pages via "semantic" links, i.e., in RDF statements. They seem to have filtered out the positive effect of someone from an .edu domain linking to a particular item page. So, if someone at Stanford would link from a stanford.edu page to www.overstock.com/Electronics/Bell-and-Howell-DV550UW-12MP-Digital-Video-Camera-with-Underwater-Housing/4450313/product.html and discussing it as an example of GoodRelations usage, Google would no longer count this with the full stanford.edu page rank. That seems reasonable to me. In my opinion, this cannot have a major effect on the 900,000 overstock.com pages in breadth, since academic post will usually mention only 1 - 2 URIs. So if this correction is properly implemented by Google, it should only correct the excessive inbound pageranks for 0.0001 % of the item pages. And again, the WSJ report is not about "semantic" links in RDF triples, but about a correction method against "social link building" to overstock.com pages from pagerank-strong .edu Web content. The bad ranking of some pages reported seems to be the result of Google "overshooting" a bit with their correction factor. Best Martin Hepp On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Barbara H Starr wrote: > Hi All, > > I would love for you all to read the article below! It is my belief, that colleges and universities have been linked back to Overstock.com as a result of their adoption of goodrelations and rdfa for e-commerce! To hear that tOVerstsock have been penalized for this (backlinks from goodrelations adoption in effect) as a result of unethical back linking is amazing to me! (If you read the article below, it specifically cites back linking from .edu sites as a judgement for downgrading the SEO ranking of the site) > > I do not see any black hat tactics here! Merely academic references! Would love to hear any thoughts on the matter > > Here is the link to the article! And FYI, this has serious bottom line impact! > > The original article and citation against JC Penny was in the NY times. > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162753779521700.html > > looking forward to your feedback > > regards > > Barbara Starr > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations From corani at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 13:06:32 2011 From: corani at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RGFuacOrbCBCb3MgKOi/nOa0iyk=?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:06:32 +0800 Subject: [goodrelations] Fwd: Google Penalizes Overstock for Search Tactics - WSJ.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According to my reading of the article, the issue was that Overstock encouraged educational institutions to place certain crafted links on their pages in exchange for discounts. This is obviously a payed linking scheme, which is explicitly forbidden in the Google guidelines. To my understanding it has nothing to do with academic pages discussing GoodRelations of other semantic practices. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 19:17, Martin Hepp wrote: > Hi Barbara, > > Thanks for the link. As far as I understand, Google did not penalize > anybody for linking to Overstock.com item pages via "semantic" links, i.e., > in RDF statements. They seem to have filtered out the positive effect of > someone from an .edu domain linking to a particular item page. > > So, if someone at Stanford would link from a stanford.edu page to > > > www.overstock.com/Electronics/Bell-and-Howell-DV550UW-12MP-Digital-Video-Camera-with-Underwater-Housing/4450313/product.html > > and discussing it as an example of GoodRelations usage, Google would no > longer count this with the full stanford.edu page rank. That seems > reasonable to me. > > In my opinion, this cannot have a major effect on the 900,000 > overstock.com pages in breadth, since academic post will usually mention > only 1 - 2 URIs. > > So if this correction is properly implemented by Google, it should only > correct the excessive inbound pageranks for 0.0001 % of the item pages. > > And again, the WSJ report is not about "semantic" links in RDF triples, but > about a correction method against "social link building" to overstock.compages from pagerank-strong .edu Web content. > > The bad ranking of some pages reported seems to be the result of Google > "overshooting" a bit with their correction factor. > > Best > Martin Hepp > > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Barbara H Starr wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I would love for you all to read the article below! It is my belief, > that colleges and universities have been linked back to Overstock.com as a > result of their adoption of goodrelations and rdfa for e-commerce! To hear > that tOVerstsock have been penalized for this (backlinks from goodrelations > adoption in effect) as a result of unethical back linking is amazing to me! > (If you read the article below, it specifically cites back linking from .edu > sites as a judgement for downgrading the SEO ranking of the site) > > > > I do not see any black hat tactics here! Merely academic references! > Would love to hear any thoughts on the matter > > > > Here is the link to the article! And FYI, this has serious bottom line > impact! > > > > The original article and citation against JC Penny was in the NY times. > > > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162753779521700.html > > > > looking forward to your feedback > > > > regards > > > > Barbara Starr > > _______________________________________________ > > goodrelations mailing list > > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > -- ?? / Dani?l Bos email : corani at gmail.com phone : +31-318-711063 (Dutch) / +86-18-701330735 (Chinese) weblog : http://blog.loadingdata.nl/ ostatus: corani at status.loadingdata.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cjunghanns at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 22:06:34 2011 From: cjunghanns at gmail.com (Christian Junghanns) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:06:34 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] goodrelations Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, as far as I was able to get information about the overvstock penalty overstock is penalized for giving discount to .edu webmaster who where linking back to overstock.com with certain keywords. that overstock is penalized for adopting rdfa and goodrelations sounds to me more like a cock-and-bull story. Have a look at this: --- In Overstock?s case, the retailer offered discounts of 10% on some merchandise to students and faculty. In exchange, it asked college and university websites to embed links for certain keywords like ?bunk beds? or ?gift baskets? to Overstock product pages? Google?s guidelines ask websites not to participate in ?schemes? that are ?intended to manipulate PageRank,? and it forbids sites from paying other sites to embed certain links on their pages. Many schemes intended to trick Google?s search algorithm have included .edu links, search-engine experts say. ?There is big money in .edu links because they are ?trusted sites? in Google?s eyes,? said David Harry, president of Reliable SEO, a SEO specialist based in Canada. --- Source: http://www.inquisitr.com/99206/overstock-in-trouble-with-google/ >From my point of view this might be the reason for overstock.com being penalized by google! regards Christian Junghanns From aaranged at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 16:34:16 2011 From: aaranged at yahoo.com (Aaron Bradley) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:34:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [goodrelations] Overstock Google penalty thread Message-ID: <466980.36228.qm@web33108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can verify that Google's penalty against Overstock is unrelated to its use of GoodRelations. Overstock was penalized for its purchasing of links (and, apparently, another violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines that has yet not been disclosed, but is according to sources another standard and established spamming technique). That the links in question were chiefly from .edu sites (particularly effective in passing PageRank to a target site) is interesting but irrelevant. Google's Webmaster Guidelines forbid the selling or purchasing of links to pass PageRank, regardless of source. Just for clarification, Martin, while only 0.0001% may have been targets of purchased links, Google's penalties for such violations (if and when detected) tend to be meted out at a section, subdomain or domain level: when discovered buying links, Google depresses rankings at a broader level than that of the relevant pages. This is not an "overshooting" by Google - think of this a punishment rather than a "correction." In extreme cases of Guidelines violations Google may remove a site from its index altogether. However, again, any rankings drop you may observe for any Overstock page is unrelated to it's use of RDF triples or GoodRelations. Further reading: http://searchengineland.com/googles-action-against-link-schemes-continues-overstock-com-and-forbes-com-latest-casualities-conductor-exits-business-65926 http://www.seroundtable.com/overstock-google-penalty-13004.html In a related note, I have discussed with colleagues in both the SEO and semantic web fields the possibility of structured data being leveraged for spam, but as far as I know it hasn't happened yet: http://www.seoskeptic.com/open-linked-data-discovery-proof-and-trust/ In any case, in the context of enterprise search, Google and other engines do not take any data at face value, but filter it for spam, and use a multitude of factors when assigning ranking to a resource. This is why you may not see your products being returned as rich snippets in search results, even if you have product pages marked in in RDFa, GoodRelations or hProduct. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: