what types are missing and we should have

[mortezahonar]

Hi,

This discussion is part of the review of Schema.org types for Joomla Core (#1), based on the maintainer meeting mentioned in PR #47667.

The goal is to identify which Schema.org types are currently missing but could be added to Joomla to better align with Google’s structured data support.
The priority is to support the types that listed in the Search Gallery.

Additionally, the idea of using one plugin for similar types (or all) to avoid plugin spamming was also raised.

Thing
├── Action
├── BioChemEntity
├── CreativeWork
│ ├── Diet
│ ├── ProductCollection
│ └── Dataset
├── Event
│ ├── EducationEvent
│ └── SportsEvent
├── Intangible
│ └── AggregateRating
├── MedicalEntity
│ ├── Diet
├── Organization
│ └── LocalBusiness
├── Person
├── Place
│ └── LocalBusiness
├── Product
│ └── ProductCollection
└── Taxon

---

List of Suggested Types

• Diet

• ProductCollection

• Dataset

• EducationEvent
  or
  SportsEvent

• AggregateRating

• LocalBusiness

---

Types that are covered by :
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/search-gallery

• Dataset
• EducationEvent
  or
  SportsEvent
• AggregateRating
• LocalBusiness

---

Please share your feedback. If needed, I can open new discussions for the final items that require further discussion.

[bembelimen]

Hello @mortezahonar thank you for your work. We discussed it in the maintainer meeting and we like your selection.
To not go to small, we think, that an element we implement, should have at least 10.000 usages:

If we now have this types selected, we should check if we can easy use subtypes by setting another type but using the same XML, like "FoodEvent" because the attributes are identical to "Event". This would increase the coverage without the need to add more stuff.

What do you think?

[mortezahonar]

Hello @bembelimen
Thanks
This idea is very good.

---

Postscript:

Before I started writing justifications for the schemas, I was faced with two conflicting viewpoints.

The more I viewed the issues from the perspective of an average user, the more I leaned towards the idea of having a diverse range of schemas.
And the more I viewed the issues from the maintainers' perspective, the more logical I found it.

It seems the proposed idea represents an optimal and desirable state.

However, I am also interested in proposing another idea. Due to my knowledge limitations, this idea may not be fully matured, but I think it is worth raising.

The goal of this idea is to enable rapid adaptation to changes in schema.org and also to cover frequently used schemas, in line with the good idea that has been proposed.
It might be complementary.

The origin of this idea is to empower Joomla sites through more comprehensive schemas in the core.
This is based on the assumption that schema can influence search engine and AI rankings; otherwise, it is less justifiable.

In a way, this idea attempts to contribute to Joomla's marketing through the success of Joomla sites in search engine or AI rankings.

The idea is as follows:
We have a table with a list of frequently used properties,
and another table with a list of frequently used types, with the frequently used properties indexed to the corresponding type.

Users should be able to change, add, or remove the types or properties that are set by default.

During this time, I have not been able to reach certainty regarding the implementation of this idea, but I am merely raising it so that it is documented.