W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Process for proposing extensions?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:40:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+YkRRXnP6NYVFVy5w0aijZgmfzTgvQUwn3s_oH+64N7vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@yahoo.com>, "Van Ulden, Joost" <Joost.VanUlden@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
>>From: "Van Ulden, Joost" <Joost.VanUlden@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>>>What is the process is for proposing extensions to the schema.org types?

On 26 October 2011 18:08, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Others correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've seen this is as good a place as any to propose extensions (though to date most discussions have focused on proposing new types, rather than extensions).

Yes, this is the place to propose extensions, new types, or feedback
from deployment experience with the existing vocabulary.

We don't yet have a super-polished process for this, and the general
model is certainly closer to 'discussion forum' than 'formal
standardisation'; but however it works, this is the place.

As a bit more context: I recently started a contract with Google,
working solely in support of the Schema.org initiative. There are
others from the Schema.org partners on this list, however unlike me
they also are busy with responsibilities for products and services. My
role in part is to help bridge between this discussion and feedback
group, and the teams from the Schema.org sponsors.  The charter, wiki
and issue tracker http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html
http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/ recently set up here are tools
towards that end.

 This forum is also designed as a meeting place for participants from
other initiatives - e.g. Dublin Core, Good Relations and so on. So one
route towards getting Schema.org extended in some area is to identify
possible collaborations and opportunities for vocabulary re-use. The
integration of rNews vocabulary into Schema.org (see
) is a good example of that.

I will do doing my best to keep the Wiki and issue tracker in a
healthy state, with summaries of proposals, use cases and examples for
extension areas. The Wiki itself is open to public participation
(though you'll need to sign up for a W3C account). Anyone proposing
vocabulary for Schema.org specifically should be prepared for their
contributions to be published there under Schema.org's terms (see
http://schema.org/docs/terms.html ); larger integration projects like
the rNews example will need a simple written agreement on file.

There's a lot to be learnt here from the habits of the microformats
community, and you'll find links to their approach and more from a
draft 'process' sketch I've posted at
http://www.w3.org/wiki/SchemaDotOrgProcess ... though note that the
process there is not for the W3C group in its entirety, but more about
the specific relationship between Schema.org and discussions here on
the W3C list.

I hope that helps. I realise there's more that could be said, but as a
high-level sketch to get things moving. As I've pointed out a few
times in specific threads, the central thing here is to remember that
we are scoped to practical markup for real public-facing Web sites. As
with all such data modeling, there is no single objective 'right way
to do it', so it is worth stating design biases. An important one here
is for markup simplicity, and for markup that fits the structure and
content of a good number of existing useful Web sites. So rather than
asking ourselves, "what is the 'best' ontology for
cars/documents/TV/music/people/...", instead think in terms of sites,
or categories of site, that describe such things...


Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 16:40:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:21 UTC