W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Project vocabulary

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:07:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFo9BJwCyr7tZTuLcKwr45-d3Rxxa6PXhfKjqnkyC=PzGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 26 February 2012 21:20, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Vocabularians,
>
> I'd like to float the possibility of a general-purpose project
> description sub-schema to get some first impressions before attempting
> to build a proper proposal.
>
> There are lots of applications online (and offline) for project
> management, Getting Things Done, todo lists and so on. There are also
> quite a lot of more domain-specific systems that have very similar
> requirements and would require pretty much the same core vocabulary -
> bug trackers being a good example. I believe it would be productive to
> be able to expose the data from tools such as these to make e.g.
> online status reports machine-readable.
>
> Some years ago I put together an RDFS schema for this. At the time I
> surveyed what was already available and looked for common terms and
> very roughly wrote it up. The (still incomplete) result is at [1]. I
> don't think anyone else picked up on it, but I did hack around with
> using the vocab myself. The basic modeling seemed to work ok, though I
> found I didn't actually need a lot of the terms I'd originally listed.
> Reviewing it today I reckon perhaps 4 classes and 11 properties form
> the core. Of these at least one of the classes (Agent) and maybe 6 of
> the properties (mostly time-related) aren't project-specific, suitable
> terms probably already exist. There aren't that many so I'll list them
> all below. I think they're self-explanatory, though there are working
> definitions at the link above.

Interesting :) Can you give some examples of relatively mainstream /
popular / sizable sites that already expose pretty much this
information in public HTML pages, i.e. that would be good candidates
for adopting such markup extensions?

That's a fairly generic answer, but I think a useful step for anyone
thinking about schema.org extensions. There are so many directions in
which we could grow this thing, so a natural filter is "would new
vocab help publishers annotate existing content, or does it require
new content too?".

cheers,

Dan
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 10:08:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT