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

Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:47:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFonJZa5HY2rSPV-JxC6k-Mb9ts_C=ga5LuE0th5y_XJJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On 22 May 2012 05:22, St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>
> wrote:
>> <quote name="Adam Wood" date="2012-05-21" time="16:01:09 -0500">
>> > As a former teacher, this gets me excited.
>> >
>> > Also, this:
>> > useRightsUrl
>> Just FYI: That term is a part of LRMI 1.0 but will not be included with
>> Schema.org. Thus, we hope implementers of LRMI will use all LRMI terms
>> (as appropriate) but we know Schema.org will not have that term on the
>> Schema.org website.
>> A similar term was discussed previously for the rNews specification
>> inclusion.
>> See:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/schemaorg-discussion/ON9nhXNYRdU/discussion
> I'm curious to know where the schema.org core team draws the line to decide
> what property gets merged in or not. So far with rnews:usageTerms,
> rnews:copyrightNotice and lrmi:useRightsUrl, it seems to follow a
> usage/copyright/licensing pattern. Is it because schema.org addresses this
> need through another property maybe? or it's just too niche for schema.org?

Schema.org is focused on search, and terms in schema.org are said to
be (in some sense) 'understood' by search engines. Of course in
reality this notion of 'understanding' is generally quite shallow; for
example consider the medical/health terminology in
 ... the fact that we might have 'SurgicalProcedure' in the schema,
should not give anyone the impression that schema.org-aware search
services actually understand *surgery* (I wouldn't let a search engine
operate on me). However with some of the vocab you mention there is a
risk that "schema.org search engines understand X" might be
misunderstood in just this way. We don't want schema.org's descriptive
vocabulary to be misinterpreted by anyone as proscriptive, i.e. as
something broadly like the http://www.robotstxt.org/ protocol  - as a
way of communicating with search service providers.


Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:23 UTC