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

Re: Proposal for Schema.org extension mechanism

From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:02:58 -0600
Message-ID: <CACfEFw_HVn67XiAojkdvE3_xmDg8U-LDjbkKBsvGkQhp34Oh8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "Denenberg, Ray" <rden@loc.gov>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Guha <guha@google.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
re: schema.org extension subdomain appengine? application

A system for collecting collaborative feedback on schema extensions
which satisfy ideal constraints (mostly dealing with ambiguous duplication):

* DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself
* "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
* Homophonic overlap
* Morphemic overlap

Features?

Schema Document Workflow w/ HTML and RDF content-type report transforms
either at build time or with live views.

* [ ] Template:
  * http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals
  * https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0009/
  *
* [ ] Workflow States: Draft, [...], Published
* [ ] Views to cache: content-type negotiation AND .ext URIs
  * [ ] RDFa
  * [ ] JSON-LD
  * [ ] TTL
  * [ ] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/197

In terms of a JSON-LD metadata manifest updated at build time,
is this an LDPContainer of LDPResources
which have artifacts with various URI?

* GitHubRepository
* GitHubCommit
* GitHubPullRequest
* GitHubIssue
* Google Doc
* Mailing List Threads
  * easier to link to w/ latest mailman
* OpenAnnotation (oa:) has permalink comments
  https://wrdrd.github.io/docs/consulting/knowledge-engineering.html#oa

http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/ has cacheable windowed paging.


Thing > CreativeWork > Course could be a good test case:
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/195


On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 19 February 2015 at 21:21, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> > I would like clarification on the approval process.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are “reviewed” extensions and “external” extensions.  But there is
> > also reference to “approved extensions”.   Does approval apply to both,
> or
> > are only reviewed extensions approved, and anyone can have an external
> > extension?  (If the latter, I would suggest changing “reviewed” to
> > “approved”, since presumably a candidate extension might be reviewed and
> not
> > approved.  But on the other hand, if both types are subject to approval,
> > then even the external extensions would be reviewed, wouldn’t they?  So
> the
> > term “reviewed” confuses me. )
> >
> >
> >
> > Let’s say I have a vocabulary and I want it approved as a schema.org
> > extension.  How do I initiate the process?
> >
> > And, do I say:
> >
> > ·          “I want it considered for approval as a reviewed extension
> (but
> > if not so approved, I want it considered for approval as an external
> > extension).”
> >
> > ·          “I want it considered for approval as an extension, you tell
> me
> > which kind.”
> >
> > ·         Or what?
> >
> > My apologies if these details are yet to be worked out.
>
> The notion of approval was more with respect to reviewed extensions.
> In practice we expect collaborative discussions will be appropriate
> and beneficial for both flavours of extension. And yes - the details
> are still being worked out (thanks to these discussions) - no apology
> needed!
>
> Dan
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2015 23:03:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 February 2015 23:03:27 UTC