The following is a discussion about the data model used by schema.org.
The data model used is very generic and derived from RDF Schema (which in turn was derived from CycL, which in turn ...).
- We have a set of types, arranged in a multiple inheritance heirarchy where each type may be a sub class of multiple types.
- We have a set of properties
- each property may have one or more types as its domains. The property may be used for instances of any of these types.
- each property may have one or more types as its ranges. The value(s) of the property should be instances of at least one of these types.
The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely pragmatic. While the computational properties of systems with a single domain and range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the creation of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act as the domain/range of some properties.
Like many other systems, the schema presented here can be extended (with a few types like Type and Property and a few properties like domain and range) to allow for reflection, i.e., for the schema to be represented in terms of itself. We maintain a Microdata version and an experimental RDFa version of such a reflected system. There is also an OWL version, though currently it may not always be fully up-to-date.
The type hierarchy presented on this site is not intended to be a 'global ontology' of the world. It only covers the types of entities for which we (Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google and Yandex), think we can provide some special treatment for, through our search engines, in the near future.
While we would like all the markup we get to follow the schema, in practice, we expect a lot of data that does not. We expect schema.org properties to be used with new types. We also expect that often, where we expect a property value of type Person, Place, Organization or some other subClassOf Thing, we will get a text string. In the spirit of "some data is better than none", we will accept this markup and do the best we can.
Mapping to RDFa LiteOur use of Microdata maps easily into RDFa Lite. In fact, all of Schema.org can be used with the RDFa Lite syntax as is. The RDFa Lite version of the markup looks almost isomorphic to the Microdata version. Given below is an sample RDFa Lite markup, of the example given for the Product type.
<div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Product"> <img property="image" src="dell-30in-lcd.jpg" /> <span property="name">Dell UltraSharp 30" LCD Monitor</span> <div property="aggregateRating" typeof="AggregateRating"> <span property="ratingValue">87</span> out of <span property="bestRating">100</span> based on <span property="ratingCount">24</span> user ratings </div> <div property="offers" typeof="AggregateOffer"> <span property="lowPrice">$1250</span> to <span property="highPrice">$1495</span> from <span property="offerCount">8</span> sellers </div> Sellers: <div property="offers" typeof="Offer"> <a property="url" href="save-a-lot-monitors.com/dell-30.html"> Save A Lot Monitors - $1250</a> </div> <div property="offers" typeof="Offer"> <a property="url" href="jondoe-gadgets.com/dell-30.html"> Jon Doe's Gadgets - $1350</a> </div> ... </div>
itemscope is dropped and
itemtype is replaced with
addition, the attribute value
vocab="http://schema.org/" is added to the body or
some other enclosing tag.
Last Updated: 6 Jun 2012