On 29 August 2013 08:08, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > 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) > FWIW and quite informally, I've been unable to find much RDFa/Microdata content using it. I've found < 50 domains using linkedmodel.org-based RDF types, less using qudt.org (there's some of former on both linkedmodel.organd w3.org). I've not studied RDF/XML, Turtle, JSON-LD etc etc use. I don't take this as any reflection on the quality of the vocabulary, which looks pretty useful... Dan
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 12:44:09 UTC