W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Person job proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:17:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7gCMFAOXH=ZKY88v1ZpxEwiKQKBnd1DFUqTOqE5W7j+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 18 September 2014 15:37, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote:
> I hadn't actually considered the discussions around job/profession at all
> heated. I believe that schema.org is strongest when it gets input from the
> community at large. Some large classes have been added recently, and all of
> them benefited from comments from the community.
>
> Speaking for myself, I honestly mean it when I say comments are welcome.

+1 (and I think we can speak for schema.org as a whole on this point too)

>> > Schema.Org terms are not very well defined in this sense (aka ISO11179)
>> > and would benefit significantly if more concise definitions were applied
>> > consistently across concepts.

If you look at recent updates - http://schema.org/docs/releases.html -
you'll see that we've been doing as much cleaning/tidying as adding in
our latest revisions. The best way to do either is to get rough
consensus in discussions here, ideally accompanied by specific
proposals via Github.

I've been involved with community discussions on RDF vocabularies for
17 years. In that time none of us in the RDF / Semantic Web community
have perfected a recipe for large scale collaboration - there are
always tradeoffs to be made. Schema.org isn't perfect in either
content or vocabulary but it is working better than any previous
effort I'm aware of, and the recent move to Github is a huge
improvement. The public discussions here in the last 2-3 years have
made schema.org what it is today, and are as essential to its nature
as the oversight of the search engine companies.

It is also worth pointing out that the mission of this list,
public-vocabs@w3.org is broader than just schema.org, and that
discussion about, and collaboration between, other vocabulary efforts
is in scope. Schema.org has helped show the usefulness of this
approach to structured data, but it will always be one vocabulary
amongst many. We tried to make that clear in the Web schemas charter,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html - I would love to
hear more from e.g. Wikidata, DBpedia, Dublin Core and other efforts,
and some renewed attention to the topic of mappings and shared
modeling conventions that might interlink them.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 15:17:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC