- From: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:14:48 -0400
- To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
QUDT is a very useful vocab. There's a chicken-egg issue and I totally understand that it isn't the WG's job to be either of those. But if it does take off, I would endorse it being added to a default context and/or used in RDFa examples. In fact, the latter would be *great*. -Sebastian On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > > > > 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.org > and 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 14:15:19 UTC