W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openactive@w3.org > July 2017

Re: Moving Modelling Opportunity data to Final Specification - a request

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@theodi.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:53:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJsy4=MfTbMjDD2JojeHN9Ndjg2w4PcL05ATioLChQvptZDKCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-openactive@w3.org
Hi,

Quick status update. The discussion around adding recurring events to
Schema.org is progressing and we now have a pull request in place to get
the new properties added to their "pending" namespace [1].

The process of refining the proposal means there will need to be some minor
changes to our spec and examples, but I don't think this should have any
major impact on anyone currently. I'll get new editors drafts in place by
tomorrow. Can I ask anyone with feedback on the current wording, including
any typos to send over comments, so I can do all the edits at the same time.

Similarly can I ask again for for +1 on moving forward. There's 52 people
in the group now and 12 live datasets using the standard. It would be great
to have a reasonable percentage of you giving a public +1, I've only
received 2 public replies of endorsement so far (thanks Nick Bailey & Axel).

Cheers,

L.

[1]. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/1693

On 10 July 2017 at 09:38, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@theodi.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As discussed in our recent calls I'm keen to move the Modelling
> Opportunity Data spec [1] and vocabulary [2] to "Final Specification"
> status at the W3C.
>
> I believe the specification is now stable and has been successfully
> implemented by a number of publishers. We can continue to improve it
> further but I'd like to reach this milestone before moving on to further
> work.
>
> The only area that may need some updates is around the handling of
> recurring events. We have been in discussion with Schema.org for some time,
> about a proposed set of changes [2] to cover this use case. I've been
> waiting on approval for that proposal before moving forward.
>
> However, if that doesn't move ahead shortly, then we'll need to revise our
> specifications to define the relevant properties. These will be minor
> changes to just document the properties that we're already recommending
> people use [4].
>
> The W3C process for publication is quite straight-forward. However I
> believe I need to be able to demonstrate that the community is happy with
> the deliverables and is ready to move forward for publication.
>
> Can I ask that if you're happy with the specifications moving to "Final
> Specification" status, pending resolution of the above issue, that you
> reply to this email with a "+1" or "I approve" message.
>
> Having the approval on a public list will help demonstrate support.
>
> Similarly, if you have concerns or questions, then please share them with
> the group so we can work through them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> L.
>
> [1]. https://www.openactive.io/modelling-opportunity-data/
> [2]. https://www.openactive.io/ns/
> [3]. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1457#
> issuecomment-314039005
> [4]. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/
> 1457#issuecomment-286423792
>
> --
> Leigh Dodds, Senior Consultant, theODI.org
> @ldodds
> The ODI, 65 Clifton Street, London EC2A 4JE
>
>


-- 
Leigh Dodds, Senior Consultant, theODI.org
@ldodds
The ODI, 65 Clifton Street, London EC2A 4JE
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 12:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 12 July 2017 12:54:27 UTC