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

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

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:23:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhL+GsuT4Cztqp-X+r6Mq8gYC5d1W-s_h6+G+hMNAQ7B+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au
Cc: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org Vocabularies" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 25 September 2014 03:31, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

>  Yes, W3C are doing some vocabularies now, though mostly much smaller
> than schema.org. The maintenance cycle seems to be the main issue.
>
>
>
> For things that need to be updated fairly regularly, you probably want to
> look at a ‘registration’ approach, which can be used down to quite a fine
> level of granularity. Better still if the lifecycle information is
> available on demand, which can be arranged as a side effect, so a record of
> changes and previous state of the set can be recovered easily. See for
> example what the WMO is doing here:
>
>
>
> http://codes.wmo.int/
>
>
>
> And UK DEFRA here:
>
>
>
> http://environment.data.gov.uk/registry/
>

Putting the political aspects on one side, my experience of W3C community
groups is that the maintenance cycle need not be an issue.  I have often
updated vocabularies on a daily basis, when required.  But it can go
through cycles of inactivity.

In fact I tentatively agreed with danbri once to help update FOAF to
include a Web of Trust, but just didnt free up enough cycles.  One aspect
is that we dont have well oiled processes in place, but I think lack of
dedicated man power is perhaps a more significant driver.


>
>
> *From:* Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 25 September 2014 11:02 AM
> *To:* W3C Vocabularies
> *Subject:* Re: The Vocabulary, Schema.org governance, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Cheers...
>
> Renato Iannella
>
> Semantic Identity
>
> http://semanticidentity.com
>
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 04:23:30 UTC

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