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