- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:09:48 +0100
- To: James McKinney <james@opennorth.ca>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
James, hi, sorry, just saw this. Bernadette has passed the chair to me for today so I can speak with some certainty here that Person will not be discussed! I'm about to send out a revised agenda that may or may not help you choose between your conflicting priorities. Phil. On 10/10/2012 20:08, James McKinney wrote: > The Scribes page suggests that tomorrow's call will be about "People, ISA Programme Vocabs" http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Scribes > > Will we discuss the list of issues at http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/4 and the questions I raised below? > > I have another call at the same time (coincidentally with open government civil society orgs), so I'd like to have an idea of the agenda. > > James > > On 2012-10-04, at 12:04 PM, James McKinney wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm arriving to this WG somewhere in the middle of its mandate, so I apologize if I raise issues that have been discussed already. I read most of the mailing list archive, but I haven't had an opportunity to read all the minutes. >> >> From what I understand, the WG will not propose a new Person class. As raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0059.html, the question is then, what Person class to recommend? There seems to be the most support for Schema.org's Person: >> >>> From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> >>> PROPOSAL: [...] the WG adopts the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to address the UCR, where terms are missing in Schema.org, an extension MAY be proposed to the Schema.org consortium. For other, relevant vocabularies, such as FOAF, vCard, ISA Core, the People vocabulary MUST define canonical, normative mappings. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0038.html >> >> And: >> >>> From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> >>> PROPOSAL 2: [...] the WG recommends the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to address the UCR. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0042.html >> >> Is it relevant that none of schema.org's class URLs resolve to RDF, and that all of its property URLs 404? Schema.org doesn't see it as an urgent issue: http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/2 >> >> At http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0059.html, it's suggested that, once the ISA Person Core Vocabulary comes under the W3 namespace, it will not define a Person class: "person:Person will disappear into the ether when next it is edited". I take it the ISA Person class is not a candidate then? >> >> Besides those two, I know of only foaf:Person as a good candidate. OpenCalais has a Person class, but I never hear people talk about OpenCalais's ontology. >> >> >> Not related to the choice of Person class, but concerning this comment: >> >>> From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> >>> After we'd 'finished' work on ISA Person core, there as a significant thread asking for it to be extended to include roles, which the People vocab begins to cover. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0042.html >> >> Doesn't http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ define a Role class for foaf:Agent's? Seeing as foaf:Person subclasses foaf:Agent, I would consider the above-mentioned work to have already been done by the organization ontology. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> James McKinney >> @mckinneyjames >> > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 13:10:19 UTC