Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

It seems pretty clear to me that schema.org is a good step for data and
humans. It's unlikely to be the end of anything, and I have my own set of
particular issues and regrets** about it, but it's a potentially huge
visibility/credibility boost for the ideas of structured data and common
vocabularies. It's absolutely telling that it's already dominating
discussion at SemTech, despite the conference being barely started here in
SF. And maybe even more telling that it was done outside of the Semantic Web
community. I think we (the SW "we") should find that embarrassing, not
offensive.

glenn

**My top three reservations about schema.org in its initial form:

1. I *really* wish they'd given Thing an ID, separate from URL. I do not
expect the URLs we get from this to be reliably usable as identifiers.

2. I wish they'd made types for everything, not mixed Things and "plain"
values. But then, people do this in RDF all the time, too. I think it's one
of the signs that the toolset still makes doing the right thing painful,
just as people cram stuff into denormalized tables because RDBMSes make
doing actual relational databases painful.

3. Honestly, I'm still totally not sold on the idea of embedding structured
data in HTML. To scale, this stuff is going to have to be generated by the
underlying data-management tools anyway, at which point I don't see why it
isn't strictly better for everybody to have HTML for human consumption
(unbloated by presentation-irrelevant data markup) and Data (in whatever
serialization) for machine consumption (uncluttered by presentation
markup/contingencies/layout). Even for Rich Snippets-like purposes this
seems like it would be simpler to devise, produce and consume...