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

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

From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:01:31 +1000
Message-Id: <870C39F5-C161-49D5-B1D6-3B39312E7B51@semanticidentity.com>
To: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>

On 24 Sep 2014, at 20:09, trond.huso@ntb.no wrote:

> Is there a problem why not w3c (or any other organization, although w3c seems most natural) could govern the vocabulary being displayed on schema.org?

No, there is nothing wrong with a W3C (etc) taking on "a" Common Web Ontology (COW).
I do acknowledge Dan's comments about the "traditional" W3C Process - which has a focus on specs, that once complete,  change infrequently.
But W3C has be doing more work on vocabs in the past years (PROV, SKOS, ORG, DCAT, ADMS...)

> Since the work being done is as open as possible, what steps has to be made to make it even more open?
> As it looks now, it feels as the work begin done is for an open, transparent and a non-profit organization.

I would say that a possible best scenario would to start by forming a W3C Community Group (that way, all the governance is "covered") and there is a clearer path to W3C full REC track work in the future.

Being a CG, would mean the process to publish specs is completely up to the group - so weekly updates can be published etc (to meet Dan's concerns).

It would also give the CG time to work on a wider vocab development process (and model) that would benefit W3C-wide in the longer term - so that there is a common framework to all vocab work across w3c developments. This point is something that we - as the Vocab Task Force - should be considering more seriously.

Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 01:02:03 UTC

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