Re: Proposal submitted to Schema.org

Hi Adrian,

Your question slightly preempts a message I was planning to send round soon.

The message would have started by saying: *You will note that the recent
release of Schema.org (3.4) unfortunately does not include our proposals
for enhancements to aid the description of Archives and their resources.*

The 3.4 release of Schema.org is imminent, I hope to see it within the next
week or three, and I am not confident it will include the archives proposal.

The reason for our proposals not making it into this release, I believe, is
not because of the proposal’s detail, but in the lack of broad obvious
support for the proposal from those that will implement it for both data
sharing and consumption.

I probably underestimated the hight of the, *how will it be used*, hurdle
for this proposal — my bad, for which I apologise to the group.

>From my point of view this is only a setback, as I definitely see the
utility of this proposal for the Archives and associated communities.

The next phase for this proposal therefore is to obtain from our group
members, and others they are in contact with, statements of if/how/when
they would implement the terms we propose for data sharing on the web, both
for publishing and/or consuming.

These statements can be made to this list, the GitHub Pull Request
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/1784> for the proposal, or
directly to myself.  I will then collate all these and use them to support
our case to hopefully get it into the following release.

On your, is it an extension or not point, the current proposal is to get
the proposed terms into the pending area of Schema.org, from where they can
be moved into another area, or dropped, dependant on how and how much they
are used.  My personal opinion is that as the proposal is quite small and
potentially generally relevant, they should eventually move into the core
vocabulary.  A decision for later, let’s get them into pending first!

I am going to be reaching out to my contacts in the near future to garner
support for our case.

~Richard.






Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 22 May 2018 at 09:56, Adrian Stevenson <Adrian.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Richard
>
> Any news on this? Any idea how/when it may be ratified as a official
> schema.org extension (if that’s roughly the right way to express it)?
>
> Cheers
>
> Adrian
> _____________________________
> Adrian Stevenson
> Senior Technical Coordinator
> Jisc Manchester
> 6th Floor, Churchgate House
> 56 Oxford Street
> Manchester
> M1 6EU
>
> Email: adrian.stevenson@jisc.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 413 7561
> http://www.twitter.com/adrianstevenson
> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/adrianstevenson/
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Sep 2017, at 4:50 pm, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.
> com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Following on from our discussions I have submitted an outline proposal
> to the Schema.org community based around Archive/ArchiveComponent.  In
> parallel I have updated the demo site to match.
> >
> > You can see the proposal in Github issue #1758
> >
> > Let’s see what feedback we get from the wider community.
> >
> > ~Richard.
> >
> >
> > Richard Wallis
> > Founder, Data Liberate
> > http://dataliberate.com
> > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> > Twitter: @rjw
>
> Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by
> guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No.
> GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill,
> Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
>
> Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company
> limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number
> 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle
> Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
>