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

RE: Project vocabulary

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:20:32 +0100
To: 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D6001162EF9CFD1@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Hi Dan, all,

I don't if this falls into that discussion but EBU maintains vocabularies at 

www.ebu.ch/metadata/cs (xml)

www.ebu.ch/metadata/cs/web ( the same in HTML)

or

http://www.ebu.ch/metadata/ontologies/skos/ (the same as above in SKOS/RDF)

Jean-Pierre

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org] 
Sent: lundi, 27. février 2012 11:08
To: Danny Ayers
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: Project vocabulary

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 10:22:17 GMT

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