- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:08:52 +0200
- To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Péter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Alex, the mechanism that lead to the first set has been described in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/profile/data/ the executive summary is that there should be a proof that the given (non W3C rec defined) vocabulary is indeed widely used on the Web; we should _not_ be in position to make some sort of a qualitative judgement on the vocabularies in order to get them on the list. If we stick to this principle then I would say qudt may be a good candidate in a few years if it really catches attention (and I am perfectly happy to say it has good chances) but not at this moment... All that being said, we may have to think about re-running those (or similar) searches to see if anything significant has changed (or rely on some other services like LOV). Thx Ivan On Aug 29, 2013, at 03:00 , Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote: > I have no idea what the procedures are for adding things to the initial context [1] but I'm going to throw this one into the mix. I would like to see prefixes for the QUDT vocabulary [2] added. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 > [2] http://www.qudt.org/ > > -- > --Alex Milowski > "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the > inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language > considered." > > Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 07:09:19 UTC