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

Re: The Vocabulary, Schema.org governance, etc.

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:03:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv9tAzUD0eK2aMnH++MjmfSVeRSm4RHHZR7=cinSng8OSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I would prefer to not get into the issue of Google join the Social WG at
this point.

Also, it doesn't make sense for me to come if I cannot participate in the
discussion.

If you think it would be useful, and if you think TPAC rules are flexible
enough to allow it, I would be happy to come and answer any questions the
WG might have.

guha

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to point out... The Social WG face to face at TPAC is limited to
> WG members but non-WG members can request to attend as observers.
> However, observers cannot participate in the discussions. I'm sure
> you'd be welcome to come participate in the discussions but to do so
> Google would need to join the WG.
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> > I will certainly come to the TPAC in Santa Clara (assuming no emergency
> > takes me out of town, etc.). Would it make sense to have a vocabulary or
> > schema.org related session/track?
> >
> > I would be happy to come talk to the Social WG.
> >
> > guha
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:59 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> > <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/22/2014 11:15 AM, Peter Mika wrote:
> >> > Hi Renato, All,
> >> >
> >> > Just like Guha, I want to start out by saying how much we appreciate
> >> > everyone's input and your concern for the growth of the
> >> > Linked/Data/Semantic Web.
> >> >
> >> > The same passion for the Web drove us to start schema.org, and from
> the
> >> > beginning we realized that yes, if we create any original text as part
> >> > of the schema, even if it's just a couple of words, we would own the
> >> > copyright to it. Exactly for this reason, we are going to great length
> >> > trying to 'disown' schema.org <http://schema.org/> so that publishers
> >> > (and really anyone else) can feel completely safe to use it and build
> on
> >> > it. The two ways of disowning that we could come up with and
> implemented
> >> > so far:
> >> >
> >> > #1 A Creative Commons copyright license
> >> > #2 Our commitment to the W3C Patent Policy
> >> >
> >> > The last schema.org TOS update was in fact adding #2.
> >> >
> >> > We really hope this is sufficient for everyone to freely use and build
> >> > upon schema.org. However, we welcome your input on what other steps
> we
> >> > could take!
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> We currently discuss using schema.org for our work in W3 Social Web WG
> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html
> >>
> >> Face to face meeting during TPAC will most likely also include relevant
> >> conversation. Some of WG members voiced various concerns about building
> >> on top of schema.org, especially that no one representing any of
> >> schema.org sponsor organizations participates in Social Web WG process.
> >>
> >> I would find it super helpful if at least one of the W3C members who
> >> co-leads schema.org effort could joint that TPAC session.
> >> 27&28 October 2014, Santa Clara http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >> ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> >
> >
>
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 16:04:18 UTC

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