- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:54:33 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Hi Dan, This e-mail is triggered specifically by an action item I have within GLD. I know we've discussed this before and you've taken some actions in a specific case but I'd like to generalise if possible. To what extent, if any, is schema.org willing to include owl:equivalentClass/Property statements in the markup to point back to a term originally in another vocab (Good Relations, DCAT etc). Take schema:Dataset. At the bottom of http://schema.org/Dataset it says "This class is based upon W3C DCAT work, and benefits from collaboration around the DCAT, ADMS and VoID vocabularies. See http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets for full details and mappings." which is useful human info but isn't as precise as schema:Dataset owl:equivalentClass dcat:Dataset which is not present in the RDFa. Where such equivalences exist (and that won't be everywhere of course) would the schema.org partners be willing to make such machine readable statements? Is there a policy? If not, do you think one might usefully be formulated? I would argue that including such triples would: - make schema.org less open to criticisms of its not-quite open process (I have been asked why W3C is so supportive of schema.org whilst its process is not fully open. I'm happy to answer that positively but it remains an issue for some); - give more weight to the more domain-specific terms since they will be seen to have come from a community within that domain; - make it easy to answer the question "which should I use, schema:dataset or dcat:Dataset" since the answer would be "either, they're the same;" - give credit where it's due. WDYT? Phil. -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:54:43 UTC