Skip to main content

Schema - Technology and approach

JSON-LD as a preferred format​

Structured markup can be implemented in a number of ways, and via a number of different standards. We're particularly interested in the standards defined by schema.org , given Google's close adherence to their specifications.

Schema.org markup can be added to web pages in a number of ways. Of all of the available approaches, we believe that including JSON-LD in the HTML source code of the page is the best (current) approach.

JSON-LD provides the flexibility, scalability, and standardization we require to achieve a consistent and extensible foundation. While it lacks some of the potential benefits of 'inlining' (where structured markup is implemented directly as part of the HTML code representing those entities), its strengths, flexibility and scalability far outweigh these limitations.

IDs, relationships and nesting​

JSON-LD allows properties to reference other pieces by their ID. For example, a product page needn't include (or repeat) all of the markup for the organization which sells that product, if it can just reference the ID of a piece which represents that organization. In theory, this allows us to avoid having to duplicate or repeat shared properties, and to reduce the amount of code/processing/overhead required to represent a page's content.

Unfortunately, the level of cross-page support for this technique is limited - Google's documentation is vague, and there's ambiguity around the relationship between IDs and URIs (anecdotally, they "can't extract structured data from other pages" [verbatim]). Given this constraint, we require that every page output all of the relevant pieces, and cross-reference these through hasPart, isPartOf, mainEntityOfPage and similar lookup mechanisms.

E.g., the following (simplified) JSON snippet defines an Organization, and references that Organization as the Publisher of a WebSite:

{
      "@context": "https://schema.org",
      "@graph": [
          {
              "@type": "Organization",
              "@id": "https://www.example.com/#/schema/Organization/1",
              "url": "https://www.example.com/",
              "name": "Example organization name"
          },
          {
              "@type": "WebSite",
              "@id": "https://www.example.com/#/schema/WebSite/1",
              "url": "https://www.example.com/",
              "name": "Example website",
              "publisher": {
                  "@id": "https://www.example.com/#/schema/Organization/1"
              }
          }
      ]
  }

In this example, we know that the publisher of the website is the same as the Organization. And because we already have a top-level piece in the graph representing that Organization, we can simply reference it by its @id in the WebSite piece. This provides enormous flexibility, and prevents us from repeating ourselves.

Given this capability, we prefer to avoid deep nesting of properties whenever possible and prefer to break out individual pieces, as in the examples which follow. This keeps the code readable, modularized, and extensible.

Constructing ID parameters​

ID parameters should generally adopt the following structure, with the exceptions listed below:

{{website}}/#/schema/{{type}}/{{ID}}

E.g:

  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/organization/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/person/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/location/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/address/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/website/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/product/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/offer/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/article/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/breadcrumb/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/howto/abc123
  • https://www.example.com/#/schema/itemlist/abc123

See the relevant pieces documentation in each case for the correct structure (where defined).

Exceptions​

  • The ID of images (ImageObject) should be the fully-qualified, absolute URL of the image file (e.g., https://www.example.com/images/cat.jpg?size=large).

Notes:

  • website is the protocol + hostname of the site (e.g., https://www.example.com).
  • type should always be forced to lowercase, and all spaces/delimiters removed.

{{identifier}} composition​

The {{identifier}} parameter should always be constructed using the following cascade:

  • A globally unique, stable system ID (e.g., the database ID of an object).
  • A globally unique, stable ID synthesized from context (e.g., abc123-3 for the third offer associated with a product having ID abc123).
  • A sequential integer local to the WebPage in which the entity resides (e.g., 4 for the fourth itemlist on a given page).

Exceptions​

These are also documented in their various pieces documentation, but bear repeating here.

  • The ID of a WebPage should always be the unmodified canonical URL of the page (i.e. the permalink).
  • The {{identifier}} fragment of the Organization which represents the site should always be 1 (e.g., https://www.example.com/#/schema/organization/1).
  • The {{identifier}} fragment of the WebSite which represents "this site" should always be 1 (e.g., https://www.example.com/#/schema/website/1).
  • The {{identifier}} fragment of a person should always be obfuscated.

Hybrid types & composite IDs​

When the node is a hybrid type (i.e., @type is an array of values, such as ['Organization', 'Person']), then the {{type}} value should concatenate the @type values in alphabetical order, separated by a hyphen (e.g., organization-person).

Primary entities​

Our model assumes that every URL should represent a primary entity - be it an organization, a product, a blog post (or collection of blog posts), a person, or some other thing.

We always aim for that 'primary entity' to be at the centre of the network graph on each page. This mental model aligns closely to how we want search engines to understand our networks; it allows us to articulate our content in ways such as, "This URL represents a Recipe, which is part of an Article, which was written by a Person, on a WebPage, which is part of a WebSite, which is operated by an Organization".

The code examples throughout this document reflect this approach; we constructs directional relationships between entities with the use of hasPart, isPartOf, mainEntityOfPage and similar connections.

Code fragmentation & placement​

Sometimes placement in the <head> is impossible, for example due to architectural restraints, where a process may be unable to access necessary context while constructing the <head>. Given that the <body> content may sometimes contain content or logic which should be reflected in the schema, we also allow code to be output at the end of the page, preceding the closing </body> tag.

Because we're using @id attributes to join pieces, it's technically possible to split and distribute the code throughout the page, through multiple <script> tags and graph structures, and to simply cross-reference entities via their IDs as per the approach outlined in this document. It's also possible to extend an existing piece by creating a new reference to it with the same ID, elsewhere in the page.

We generally recommend that system authors attempt to avoid this kind of fragmentation when possible (as it introduces fragility and obfuscation into an already complex system), but, recognize that it's sometimes necessary.

In fact, we use this approach in some of our own solutions when it's not possible to compute and output everything in the <head>. For example, our Yoast WooCommerce SEO plugin relies on parsing product information which isn't available during initialization, and so outputs a secondary <script> blog in the page's footer which contains additions to the page's graph (specifically, product and review information). This additional graph stitches seamlessly to create a cohesive whole.

Hybrid types​

Sometimes, an object might be two different things. A book, for example, can be a book and a product, and have properties of both. It may have both an author and a price.

Adding multiple types allows for greater flexibility and more precise descriptions of objects.

We use hybrid types sparingly throughout our approach, however, as they can blur the 'focus' of a specific page. If the main entity of a page (or a URL) is a complex, compound type, we risk deviating from our "One URL, one thing" model.