W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Proposing two new SWIG Task forces

From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:51:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHSr+v28DmbSn909RZc0sN7GZOyeP6gCU0Kc6CLy3M7YBVBB9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org Annotation" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ramanathan V Guha <guha@google.com>
Ivan, (and Dan)

I presume several members from W3C participated in this schema.org workshop
in person. If so, are you suppose to share the meeting summary with us ?

That might be quite helpful for us to understand what happened in there.


Regards, Daniel.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> I believe this is very much in scope. The goal of the task force is to look
> at various vocabularies, see how they relate and evolve, etc. I would
> encourage you to join the task force and present the vocabulary there.
>
> Bottom line: yes, it is absolutely relevant!
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 22:45 , Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > As you know, MAWG (Media Annotation Working Group) is charted to develop
> a
> > simple ontology mapping between different metadata annotations on the
> web,
> > and the two specs are now in PR-Ready/CR-Ready status. In our group, we'd
> > think to expand our ontology mapping to schema.org vocabulary, although
> we
> > do not much information on schema.org yet.
> >
> > Are there any relation between MAWG mapping and schema mapping in [6]
> below
> > ? Is it a totally irrelevant ?
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance, Daniel (for Media Annotation Working Group)
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Soohong Daniel Park
> > Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
> > http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:57 PM
> > To: W3C Semantic Web IG
> > Subject: Proposing two new SWIG Task forces
> >
> > One of the exciting events of the past few months was the joint
> announcement
> > of schema.org [1] from three major search engine providers (Google,
> Yahoo,
> > and Microsoft). It was a major step in the recognition that structured
> data,
> > embedded in Web pages or otherwise, has a huge role to play on the Web.
> Put
> > another way: structured data on web sites is definitely now mainstream.
> >
> > The role of the schema.org site is twofold. It defines a family of
> > vocabularies that search engines "understand"; although these
> vocabularies
> > are still evolving, they reflect the areas that search engines consider
> as
> > most important for average Web pages. Independent of the vocabularies,
> > schema.org also defines the syntax that search engines understand, i.e.,
> how
> > the vocabularies should be embedded in an HTML page. At the moment the
> > emphasis from schema.org is on the usage of microdata[2].
> >
> > As with all such important events, the announcement of the schema.orgsite
> > has generated lots of discussion on the blogosphere, on different mailing
> > lists, twitter, and so on. The discussion crystallized around two,
> > technically different set of issues:
> >
> > - What is the evolution path of the schema.org vocabularies; how do they
> > relate to vocabulary developments around the world that have already
> brought
> > us such widely used vocabularies like Dublin Core, GoodRelations, FOAF,
> > vCard, the different microformat vocabularies, etc?
> >
> > - What is the role of RDFa[3] and microformats[4] for search engines;
> would
> > search providers also accept RDFa 1.1 or microformats as an alternative
> > encoding of structured data? This also raises the more general issue on
> how
> > microdata and RDFa relate to one another as W3C specifications, and to
> > microformats, independently of the specific vocabularies.
> >
> > These issues will be discussed on the upcoming schema.org workshop in
> > Mountain View, CA, on 21 September. They are also within scope of
> discussion
> > within  the SWIG. Accordingly, as a result of a variety of discussions, I
> am
> > proposing two new SWIG Task Forces to discuss these and flesh out
> solutions.
> > Note that this is also related to a TAG request from June [5].  Assuming
> the
> > proposals are approved, the two Task Forces will be:
> >
> > 1. Web Schemas Task Force[6], to be chaired by R.V. Guha (Google),
> > concentrating on general vocabulary-related discussions. The Task Force's
> > focus should be on collaboration around vocabularies, mappings between
> them,
> > and around syntax-neutral vocabulary design and tooling. Issues like
> > convergence of various vocabulary schemas, use cases, tools and
> techniques,
> > documentation of mappings and equivalences between schemas, should all be
> in
> > scope for this Task Force.
> >
> > 2. HTML Data Task Force[7], to be chaired by Jeni Tennison, should
> conduct a
> > technical analysis on the relationship between RDFa and microdata and how
> > data expressed in the different formats can be combined by consumers.
> This
> > Task Force may propose modifications in the form of bug reports and
> change
> > proposals on the microdata and/or RDFa specifications where they would
> help
> > users to easily translate between the two syntaxes or use them together.
> The
> > Task Force should also work on a general approach for the mapping of
> > microdata to RDF, as well as the mapping of RDFa to microdata JSON.
> >
> > Both Task Forces should be public, both in terms of joining the
> respective
> > mailing lists or following the discussions via the public archives.
> >
> > Everybody is welcome!
> >
> > Ivan Herman
> >
> > [1] http://www.schema.org
> > [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/
> > [4] http://microformats.org/
> > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0366.html
> > [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html
> > [7] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> > mobile: +31-641044153
> > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 05:52:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 September 2011 05:52:26 GMT