W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Adding QUDT to RDFa Initial Context

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:43:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrr+WhWV7bbXKetuB4Kqy2m_Q1mv+-Y_WuB5dm25z68ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, P├ęter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
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...

Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 12:44:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:34 UTC