- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:10:20 +1100
- To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Ruben Verborgh" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, "SW-forum Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:03:03 +1100, Ruben Verborgh
<ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
>> A way forward: slowly migrate the useful terms from the RDF, RDFS and
>> OWL namespaces into the schema.org namespace, or into some virgin
>> namespace that’s not under w3.org.
>
> What would be the objections to use w3.org, and the benefits of
> schema.org?
Not sure. But I object to the idea of using schema.org - among other
things, using a namespace rooted in a domain you don't control is a
terrible idea.
And holding namespaces for RDF fundamentals is a long way outside
schema.org's mission, whereas it seems an obvious thing to expect W3C to
do.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 23:10:59 UTC