W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Analysis and fixes for glitches introduced in v3 release

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:37:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7fh-JvM-ZS2yMLbByOkqLA6q69femw3qCfhNMNRLEukg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Tom Marsh <tmarsh@exchange.microsoft.com>, Peter Mika <pmika@hotmail.com>, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>, St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Ramanathan Guha <rvguha@gmail.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Shankar Natarajan <shankan@microsoft.com>
I have continued down this path, and believe our draft release branch
(sdo-makemake) now restores proper order, repairing the various places
in which v3.0 lost improvements (primarly from 2.1). The development
site at webschemas.org is now serving from this branch.

Please take a look at http://webschemas.org/docs/releases.html#1203
for an overview of the fixes and at the detail in

I have combined an (rdf)diff-based investigation of changes in the
data/schema.rdfa file with additional checks based on manual review of
all the (docs/releases.html) documented changes since v2.0. It is
possible that some small changes may have been overlooked but I am
pretty confident that it undoes most of the damage we inflicted on
ourselves. As ever, the more review that changes get the better so
please take look if you have the time and expertise.

I will spend the next few days looking for a few more "low hanging
fruit" to include, before proposing a release candidate for 3.1 based
on this branch.



On 17 June 2016 at 18:48, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> It emerged (post release, regrettably) that schema.org 3.0 included a
> number of unintended reversions, i.e. we lost some of the improvements
> from 2.1. This was related to the large set of changes we made while
> moving the medical/health vocabulary out into a health-lifesci
> extension. I take responsibility for this, and will put some more
> careful review steps in place for large scale changes in future. I'm
> also looking with Richard Wallis at adding further unit tests that
> could warn us of unintended changes.
> The issue and a proposed set of fixes are documented in
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1203 - I'd appreciate
> any additional review and sanity checking. My approach to fixing this
> was to use an "RDF diff" tool and manually compare all the claims in
> v2.2 versus v3.3.  A summary of the fixes I have made is at
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1203#issuecomment-226833017
> and the candidate content is now online for review via our development
> site, webschemas.org.
> My preference would be to get this material out asap as v3.1, perhaps
> accompanied by some reasonably obvious and quick vocabulary fixes
> (suggestions welcomed on that point too).
> cheers,
> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 17:38:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 June 2016 17:38:25 UTC