- From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 08:32:15 -0600
- To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CABzPtBJnDuikN6aEXrt66kRT8nWtO_qMvar23JYgPnRL8MVZfA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to remaining agnostic _____________________________________________________ Jacob Jett Research Assistant Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship The Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA (217) 244-2164 jjett2@illinois.edu On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote: > While not pretending to have anywhere near the expertise on this as you or > Danbri, I want to express a +1000 to his position. There are a multitude of > vocabularies, and each one is important to some sector of publishing, > communication, and information dissemination. I think it would be a huge > mistake to try to pick one of them. IMO it is essential to remain agnostic > on such things in the context of the Web. In fact, within specific domains, > practitioners often find that even the most widely used vocabularies, > including schema.org and both DCMES and DCTERMS, are insufficient for > their particular domain-specific needs. Common framework (e.g, the abstract > model), sure; agreed-upon syntaxes/serializations (note the plurals), okay, > more than one but maybe not any old thing; common vocabulary, don't go > there. > --Bill Kasdorf > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 2:12 AM > To: W3C Public Annotation List; Dan Brickley > Subject: Advice on Referencing External Vocabularies > > Hi, Dan– > > Thanks for the discussions at TPAC. > > (Context: Danbri is the coordinator for Schema.org, one of the > contributors to Dublin Core, founder of FOAF, and a long-time SemWeb > expert, experienced in both application development and in standards. I > asked him over dinner what approach we should use in referencing external > vocabularies for our terms.) > > If you'll recall, I asked you for advice on what vocabulary to reference, > and relative influence and usage of `dc-term`s vs Schema.org. > > I was surprised by your answer… If I understood correctly, you suggested > not using any one canonical external vocabulary in our spec, but rather to > offer a set of equivalent vocabulary terms that might be used, depending on > the project. On the one hand, this makes sense, and is a decentralized > solution; on the other, it doesn't really reduce the complexity, as I'd > hoped to do by referencing only a single external vocabulary. Could you > explain the rationale there, or correct my misunderstanding? > > Also, I asked about patterns of usage in `dc-term`s and Schema.org. My > understanding was that Schema.org had already overtaken the usage of Dublin > Core in the wider Web (though perhaps not in older libraries), and that it > would be easiest for future developers if we used Schema.org; TimBL > suggested during our F2F that more projects, and thus more tools, natively > understood Dublin Core today; ultimately, I guess we need to figure out the > right balance (or, maybe not, if we follow your advice on including > multiple references). I think you had a more nuanced answer on usage > patterns, too. Can you speak to that as well? > > All your explanations made sense to me at the time, but not enough for me > to convey facts and explain it to others in this WG… I appreciate your > helping us sort out some long-standing (if not particularly > contentious) issues. > > Thanks– > –Doug > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 14:33:28 UTC