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

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

From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:38:16 +0000
To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D049F50B.66343%pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Hi Paola,

Perhaps vertical is not the best word, but certainly addressing the use
cases of an industry/business that is only a small part of the W3C
membership.

AFAIK, W3C has now industry-oriented interest groups, but even that is a
relatively new creation and didn't exist when schema.org started.

Cheers,
Peter

On 9/25/14, 4:20 PM, "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hellow Peter
>
>thanks for sharing insights
>
>makes sense, but......
>
> not sure I can see schema.org purely as vertical
>
>would have thought that vertical is 'domain oriented''
>while horizontal is it applies across domains
>
>no?
>
>that may depend on a given worldview perhaps ? :-)
>
>
>
>PDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> Hi Renato,
>>
>> The W3C in particular did not want to take on vertical vocabulary
>>projects
>> in the past. Tim B-L emphasized in multiple talks that the W3C would
>>like
>> to focus on developing ontology languages, and let industry develop
>> vertical solutions. (To me the examples you mentioned such as SKOS and
>> PROV are part of the language infrastructure.)
>>
>> schema.org is such a vertical solution based on the needs of large web
>> consumers.
>>
>> Best,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 14:39:52 UTC

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