Skip to content

Standards

Schema.org

A shared vocabulary for structured descriptions of things on the web.

Kind
Vocabularies
Steward
Schema.org community
Official source
https://schema.org/

What it describes

Schema.org defines types and properties used to describe web content such as organizations, articles, datasets, and events. Publishers commonly express these descriptions as JSON-LD embedded in pages. Shared terms make a page easier for consuming systems to interpret, but the vocabulary is broad and deliberately does not impose all the validation rules a domain-specific record may need.

Structured markup is a publisher's assertion, not independent evidence that the page's claims are correct. Types can overlap, and a property can have several acceptable value forms. A consuming system should compare markup with visible content and authoritative sources before using it as a fact. Record the page URL, retrieval date, and exact markup when a downstream decision depends on it.

Structure

Types and properties published as a web vocabulary; commonly serialized in JSON-LD.

Useful for

  • Interpret structured web-page metadata.
  • Map common entity types.
  • Discover candidate facts for verification.

Limits

  • Markup is a publisher assertion.
  • Broad types may be underspecified.
  • Does not replace source verification.

How it is used in practice

Schema.org began as a shared effort of several search engines and is now developed in an open community process. Publishers add markup to pages, most often as JSON-LD, to say that a page describes an organization, an article, a product, an event or a dataset, and to state properties such as name, author, date published and URL. Search engines and other consumers use the markup to understand pages and, in some cases, to display richer results. Search engine documentation sets out which types and properties each engine uses for which features.

The vocabulary is large, general and tolerant. A property may accept several kinds of value, a type may inherit from several parents, and most properties are optional. That tolerance suits wide adoption and means that valid markup carries limited guarantees about its content.

A worked example

A fictional company page carries markup stating that it is an organization named Halden Therapeutics AG with a founding date, a number of employees and an address. A researcher compiling company facts reads the markup and finds a founding date that differs from the one in the company register.

The record keeps both. The markup is cited as the publisher's assertion with the page URL and retrieval date, and the register as the authority for the legal fact. The difference is reported as a conflict between a self-published description and a register, with the register preferred for the founding date under a stated rule, and the markup kept as evidence of how the company describes itself. If the markup disappears in a later redesign, the earlier observation remains in the record with its date.

Evaluating a claim that rests on markup

Compare the markup with the visible page. Publishers are asked to mark up what users can see, and markup that describes content not shown is a warning sign. Compare it with an independent source for any fact that matters. Consider why the markup exists: much of it is added for search presentation, and its authors may optimize for features rather than accuracy.

Check the type and the property used. An organization type with a founder property is a different claim from a person type, and a property that accepts a name string states less than one that points to an identified entity. Where the markup includes identifiers or links to other records, treat them as candidate links to be verified, not as established sameness.

Confusions to avoid

Schema.org is not a data validation standard and not a registry. It does not say which values are correct, and passing a markup tester says that the syntax and the expected types are acceptable to that tool. Different consumers have different requirements, and a page that qualifies for one feature may not for another.

It is also not a replacement for a domain ontology. Schema.org terms are broad on purpose, and a regulated domain needs more precise vocabularies and controlled terms. A system of record can use Schema.org as an interchange layer for publication while keeping a richer internal model, and should say which statements are exported and which are not.

Questions a reviewer can ask

Does the markup match the visible page? Which type and property carry the claim, and how specific are they? Is the value a bare string or a link to an identified entity? Does an independent source agree? When was the page read, and is the markup retained as retrieved? Is the markup being used as a convenient hint, or as the sole support for a fact?

Maintenance and change

The vocabulary changes in releases that add types and properties, and occasionally mark terms as superseded or pending. Publishers who copy markup from templates may continue to use terms that have been superseded, and consumers vary in how they treat them. A record that stores extracted markup should keep the vocabulary release current at extraction time when it is known, and the retrieval date when it is not. Search engines also change which properties they use, so a markup property that mattered for one feature at the time of publication may have no effect later, and its presence is then a historical fact about the page rather than a signal of anything current.

Found an error on this page? See corrections for what counts as one, how to report it and the dated log.

Enquiry

Which of your sources carry Schema.org?

Tell us which sources carry it, which key the same entity some other way and who may read which. We reply with whether and how a first record would use this vocabulary.

Or write to [email protected] in your own words.