W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Proposal for Schema.org extension mechanism

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:09:37 -0500
Message-ID: <54E34BA1.2080201@openlinksw.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 2/17/15 3:33 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 17 February 2015 at 01:16, Kingsley  Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> >On 2/16/15 4:48 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> >
>> >On 02/15/2015 08:48 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> >
>>> >>On 2/15/15 12:19 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> >
>> >...
>> >
>>> >>Schema.org addresses the needs of a community that wasn't optimally
>>> >>served by the generic Semantic Web meme. A lot of that (as already
>>> >>stated) has all to do with the incentives that arise naturally from the
>>> >>visible support of Google, Yandex, Yahoo!, and Microsoft (via Bing!).
>>> >>That's massive, and its negates the prescriptive specification problem
>>> >>that's dogged RDF from the onset. Ironically, if RDF was correctly
>>> >>pitched as a formalization of what was already in use, we would have
>>> >>reduced 17 years to something like 5, no kidding!
>>> >>
>>> >>For instance, Imagine if <link/> and "Link:" had been incorporated into
>>> >>the RDF narrative as existing notations for representing entity
>>> >>relations? Basically, Web Masters, HTML+Javascript developers, and the
>>> >>Microformats (now IndieWeb folks) would have be far less confused and
>>> >>resistant to the RDF -- especially as would have prevented the massive
>>> >>RDF/XML blob of confusion that ultimately obscured everything.
>> >
>> >You may find this discussion relevant:
>> >https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
>> >
>> >
>> >It even has a Linked Open Data URI:
>> >http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/https/github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
>> >.
>> >
>> >Aside from the issues identified by the HTTP URI above, there's a
>> >fundamental need to actually acknowledge the fact that <link/> and "Link:"
>> >are notations (HTML and HTTP respectively) for representing entity
>> >relationship types (relations). And by implication a notation for
>> >representing subject->predicate->object statements --  which actually
>> >demonstrates that RDF is a retrospective standardization of what was already
>> >in use on the Web, as any standard should be.
> This larger conversation has been rumbling along since Nov'96.
> http://www.w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-link
>
> For the purposes of this current thread can we nudge things back
> towards discussion of schema.org extensions?

Of course. That said,  I never nudged it away though :)

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this




Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2015 14:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 February 2015 14:09:56 UTC