OpenGraph or Schema.org?

Question

Just wondering, you guys approve of the OpenGraph protocol after markup, for example:

<meta property="og:title" content="The Rock" /> <meta property="og:type" content="movie" /> <meta property="og:url" content="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/" /> 

Or Schema.org protocol with

 <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"> <span itemprop="name">Kenmore White 17" Microwave</span> <img src="kenmore-microwave-17in.jpg" alt='Kenmore 17" Microwave' /> <div itemprop="aggregateRating" itemscope itemprop="http://schema.org/AggregateRating"> 

Which one should I integrate, since it seems to me that only 1 is needed? [in fact you can only integrate one or?]

Frankly, IMHO - I think OpenGraph is "less intrusive" for a common code base - since it’s easier to implement partial views [using ASP.NET MVC], while the Schema.org protocol requires [at least in my opinion] destructive add-in HTML code through your code?

Edit: It seems I have completed the integration of both - not sure if this is allowed, but the documentation on Schema.org is unclear. It is noteworthy that this link does not contain much information.

Q: How does schema.org relate to Facebook Open Graph?
Facebook Open Graph performs its task well, but it does not provide detailed information search engines should improve the user experience.

A single single web page can have many components and it can talk about several things. If search engines understand the various components of a page, we can improve the presentation of our data. Even if you tag your content using the Open Open Facebook protocol, schema.org provides a mechanism for providing more detailed information about specific objects on the page.
For example, a group page may include any or all of the following:

• Album list
• Price for each album
• A list of songs for each album along with a link to listen to samples of each song
• List of upcoming Bios shows of band members

Therefore, I assume that they are compatible together.

Answer 1

So, let's start with a couple of cliches and distorted metaphors - we'll talk a little about apples and oranges, comparing OG and Schema.org, and when it comes to this metadata, they use it for courses.

The correct answer depends on your intentions when adding metadata to your page. What do you hope to receive? What victory is here for you? Different forms of metadata are for slightly different purposes.

Google has made it clear that it is moving away from the emphasis on microformats and is focusing on Schema.org to create advanced search results. If you want to optimize for Google, Bing and other search engines, add the Schema.org markup. This is the direction HTML5 entered into.

Facebook OG markup must be added if you want to benefit from turning your content into a social object and enabling its multi-point connection to the social graph, which is the Facebook universe.

In my experience, most people seek to capitalize on both approaches — they do their best in search rankings and increase reach and distribution through social channels. So, IMHO, it's best to be as thorough as possible by adding Schema.org markup so that it is suitable for your content and uses Open Graph metadata. They do slightly different but complementary things.

Answer 2

We are talking here about two separate concepts: syntax and dictionary .

Open Graph Protocol and Schema.org are dictionaries . Other dictionaries are, for example, Dublin Core , FOAF and SIOC .

These dictionaries are usually not associated with a specific syntax. If you want to describe your content in HTML documents with such a dictionary, you can use the RDFa and / or Microdata syntax .

Which one should be integrated, since I believe that only 1 is needed? [in fact you can only integrate one or?]

Your first example uses the Open Graph Protocol (= dictionary) with RDFa (= syntax). Your second example uses Schema.org (= dictionary) with microdata (= syntax).

You can mix them as you like. (You can use both dictionaries with both syntaxes on the same page. You can use both dictionaries with only one syntax. You can use only one dictionary with both syntaxes or with only one syntax. ...). It completely depends on your specific use case.

What do you want to achieve? If you are interested in a specific third party analyzing your content, you should check their documentation. Usually they support only certain dictionaries with specific syntax.

But if you want to mark your content with semantic metadata without taking into account a specific use case, you can adhere to one syntax and use any dictionary suitable for your content. Personally, I would choose RDFa ( Lite ). It is based on RDF , which works with formats other than HTML. This is a W3C recommendation (no microdata). And most of the dictionaries you find are defined in RDF (S). See my answer about the future of RDFa and microdata .

Answer 3

Both can be safely used together. These two efforts currently use different syntaxes for encoding data in HTML (W3C RDFa or Microdata), but W3C is actively discussing the possible convergence of these projects. Or at least higher compatibility. Whether there will also be dictionary-level convergence between Schema.org and OGP or the services that both consume remains to be seen. But at the same time, they both add value and can be safely combined.

Answer 4

It all depends on whether you are trying to tag your site for the social world (facebook) or search engines. Both are recommended, but if you only have time for one, choose the priority of the company's marketing focus. OGP is huge for facebook but doesn't have an ounce of use in SEO. Seo is completely micro-data dependent and is a way to create proper html5.

HTML5 Microdata Doctor http://html5doctor.com/microdata/

Google talks about markup: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=1211158

Bing talks about markup: http://onlinehelp.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/hh207238.aspx

---

Update

For those who find this answer, a lot has changed since I first published it. Schema.org is widely used by all major search engines, and then some, but markup is now preferable to JSON-LD. Great Skeptic SEO article outlining the changes Google has made.

Google Structured Data provides documentation in JSON-LD and is very welcome, although RDFa and microdata are still partially supported.

JSON-LD should be used in conjunction with any social channels that you are trying to set up for OGP for Facebook, Twitter cards for Twitter, etc.

Answer 5

Google prefers a scheme, and an open graph is better suited for web content related to social networks. Your sample code looks good, but remember to include the prefix

 <html prefix="og: http://ogp.me/ns#"> 

in the title of each page that has ogp.

You can test the performance of ogp or schema using the extended snippet testing tool.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

In the case of a schema, you can check with SDTT: a structured data testing tool

https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool

Answer 6

Why not use json-ld for markup? I am thinking of implementing schema.org markup based on json-ld. Thus, it will not be intrusive. My ghost blog uses it. I don’t know if it supports search engines. But all the examples on schema.org now include an implementation for json-ld. take a look here http://schema.org/WebPage

And all my applications use twitter cards, opengraph fb tags and microformats tags like rel and schema.org structured metadata. And I find that schema.org metadata is the most intrusive. Therefore, replacing this last bit with json-ld and keeping the code clean. Too many tags, and he recommended keeping your html small;)

Answer 7

RDFa og serves to uniformly recognize content using REST to consider when embedding in containers that were not predicted at creation time. If the container is specified as a search result, then schema.org microdata is well understood by search robots. With og, it is the responsibility of the container publisher, and such freedom of quality can improvise search ranking, while schema.org will improvise the intelligibility of search results in the context of the intent of the content creator. Dictionaries are usually ignored when used with a competing semantic markup technique, so it is best to use microdata only with schema.org and og only with RDFa. Both microdata and RDFa can coexist in a single document.

Answer 8

rdfa (opengraph) and microdata (schema) cannot be used on the same html page

"3) It’s good to continue to support our existing extended fragment markup formats. If you have already done markup on your pages using microformats or RDFa, continue to support it. One caveat: if you use it to use the new schema.org markup or continue to use existing microformats or RDFa markup, you should avoid mixing formats together on the same web page, as this may confuse our parsers. "

SRC: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.in/2011/06/introducing-schemaorg-search-engines.html