Search code examples
schema.orgjson-ld

Semantics of relative URLs in schema.org Breadcrumbs in JSON-LD

The schema.org website gives an example of a breadcrumb represented in JSON-LD

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
 "@context": "http://schema.org",
 "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
 "itemListElement":
 [
  {
   "@type": "ListItem",
   "position": 1,
   "item":
   {
    "@id": "https://example.com/dresses",
    "name": "Dresses"
    }
  },
  {
   "@type": "ListItem",
  "position": 2,
  "item":
   {
     "@id": "https://example.com/dresses/real",
     "name": "Real Dresses"
   }
  }
 ]
}
</script>

Most of it is clear to me but I'm not absolutely certain about the semantics of the links provided in this example.

What I find confusing are the @id properties. Their values are URLs and it looks like these should lead to actual web pages linked to by the breadcrumb items. However, the name of the property suggests that the URLs might actually point to concept identifiers in some ontology. Which is it?

The Without Markup tab contains an unannotated piece of HTML suggesting that my first guess is correct and the URLs actually lead to web pages.

<ol>
  <li>
    <a href="https://example.com/dresses">Dresses</a>
  </li>
  <li>
    <a href="https://example.com/dresses/real">Real Dresses</a>
  </li>
</ol>

Is this the case and is it okay to use relative URLs in this context? 

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
 "@context": "http://schema.org",
 "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
 "itemListElement":
 [
  {
   "@type": "ListItem",
   "position": 1,
   "item":
   {
    "@id": "https://dresses.com/dresses",
    "name": "Dresses"
    }
  },
  {
   "@type": "ListItem",
  "position": 2,
  "item":
   {
     "@id": "/dresses/cocktail",
     "name": "Cocktail Dresses"
   }
  }
 ]
}
</script>
Solution

  • Is this the case and is it okay to use relative URLs in this context?

    Over at GitLab, we were confused by this too (see relevant issue) since Google's Rich Results Test blows up with relative URL's, but there are historic examples of relative URL's working in production.

    So, we tried it out. We pushed some json+ld with relative URL's to production and one of our engineers received an alert that the id field was invalid.

    Short answer - no it is not okay to use relative URL's for json+ld (but is okay to have relative URL's for markup, see this comment) and Google clearly expects absolute URL's. If it happens to work now, there's no guarantee that it will in the future.