- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:53:43 +0200
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Quick reply for now as I'm on the road. Briefly ... * yes, agree there is a need to be clearer on scope of this forum, mechanisms and process for schema.org collab, and expectations about 'level of detail' * It's worth noting the existence of W3C's Community Group mechanism, http://www.w3.org/community/ ... for schema.org-oriented or any other vocab collab * I'm working on a 'how we work' post/page for schema.org, as part of v1.0 (and 1.1) release planning * http://groups.google.com/group/lrmi/ (for LRMI) http://groups.google.com/group/sports-schema-collab/ (for Sports) and others are examples of nearby public lists where people are working through detail of proposal The basic recipe for getting "we should add this" consensus from the schema.org group is that we have sense that there is healthy level of interest from significant producers/publishers and likely consumers; that the specifics of schema have had some careful attention from wider community / relevant experts, and a sense of 'rough consensus' here and in nearby fora that such an addition would be progress. There are other factors (like putting some thought into relationship between additions and existing parts of the schema) but I'll not try to be complete here. cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:54:13 UTC