0

I can't find any examples in terms of how a https://schema.org/Product should be marked up in terms of adding dimensions like height, width, depth, and weight.

Did some further clicking and discovered https://schema.org/QuantitativeValue.

Does this look valid?

{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "Product",
  "weight": {
  "@type": "QuantitativeValue",
  "value": 454,
  "unitCode": "g"
  },
  ...
}

And then I would want to do the same for each dimension, eg:

...
  "height": {
  "@type": "QuantitativeValue",
  "value": 30,
  "unitCode": "CMT"
  },
  "width": {
  "@type": "QuantitativeValue",
  "value": 15,
  "unitCode": "CMT"
  },
  ...
}

Does seem a bit verbose - perhaps (if the above is even valid) there is an alternative (more condensed) way to express this?

1 Answer 1

2

This seems to be actively being worked out at the moment, I see two GH issues that are related:

https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2811 and https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2587

The example from the gDoc in the first issue is similar to your approach, though if anything more verbose, not less.

"hasMeasurement": [{             
"@type": "QuantitativeValue",
"valueReference": "https://schema.org/WearableChest",   
"unitCode": "INH",
"value": 47 -- Point value 

}]

My impression is that until the schema is hammered out, any structured data we'd add would likely not be parsed by bots, it obviously wouldn't be hard for them to work with if they tried, but there's not a lot of incentive (unless you're trying to add it to an eBay or Walmart or some other site big enough to want to scrape...)

1
  • Thanks Toby!! This is super helpful. Wow I'm surprised things aren't further along with this...
    – Drewdavid
    Commented Jun 2, 2021 at 20:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.