W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Use FOAF or schema.org in examples?

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:24:05 -0500
Message-ID: <5111B0B5.3000303@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 02/05/2013 06:31 PM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
> On 06/02/13 09:16, David I. Lehn wrote:
>> A nice feature of JSON-LD is that it lets you link together data
>> using multiple specialized vocabs.  Perhaps it would be good to
>> highlight that in our examples and specifically use various well
>> documented vocabs.
> +1

+1 as well.

The reason I didn't move everything over to schema.org when I made the
changes in the JSON-LD 1.0 spec is because of this very reason. We need
to show folks that JSON-LD isn't a schema.org-only thing.

The schema.org vocab terms returning 404 has been an issue for around 18
months now, so the argument that they're not being responsive to
critical vocabulary publication issues also resonates with me.

Putting schema.org stuff into the JSON-LD 1.0 spec is mostly a marketing
move. This was done so folks understand that this stuff works with
schema.org. Web developers are really excited about it because of the
enhanced search results, but I still have a number of reservations about
the one-vocab-to-rule-them-all approach. I share most of Dave Lehn's
concerns, so I don't think we should remove other non-schema.org
examples to show a good balance of vocabulary mixing with JSON-LD.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals
http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 01:24:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT