Are foaf:Person and schema.org/Person compatible with each other? or better stick with one of them?

Question

1. schema.org is better for SEO
2. From https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/ it seems FOAF has more adoption?

I have used the ontology:

@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
@prefix gr: <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#> .

GoodRelations is worry free as it is mostly compatible with schema.org, but what about the other two? i.e.

1. dcterms:creator vs https://schema.org/creator
2. foaf:Person vs https://schema.org/Person

Answer 1

You can use multiple vocabularies/ontologies to describe the same entity.

If a consumer (like a search engine) only recognizes terms from a specific vocabulary (like Schema.org), it will simply ignore the terms from the other vocabularies (like FOAF).

So, for an entity that represents a person, you could use the types schema:Person, foaf:Person and/or dcterms:Agent. And for a book this person wrote, you could use the properties schema:creator, foaf:maker, and/or dcterms:creator.

If your primary motivation is SEO (instead of Linked Data), I would recommend to use the vocabulary Schema.org as far as possible, and other vocabularies in addition (at least where Schema.org is lacking, or, if you prefer, wherever it’s possible).