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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:39:25 -0700
Message-ID: <5424291D.4000000@gmail.com>
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I would say that schema.org is not a vertical at all, not in scope, nor in 
participation.  It initially was more of a multi-domain upper-middle ontology, 
but recent additions go fairly far down into quite a few domains.

There are certain aspects of schema.org that appear to favour certain kinds of 
consumers, but I don't think that this makes schema.org a vertical. 


peter


On 09/25/2014 07:20 AM, Paola Di Maio 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 14:39:58 UTC

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