W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schema-gen@w3.org > February 2017

Re: CG: Charter Purpose Statement & introductory notes

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:13:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2SbmNt4fGPopG6WYS9KiTq4RYG559774EwqKeSfkAtGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-schema-gen@w3.org
Cc: Hans Polak <info@polak.es>
Hi all,

I wanted to make another call for input to the proposed changes for the
group description.

If you were happy with the description, simply reply +1/0/-1 would be
great. Also importantly, if any big objections need to be considered.

The Google docs link is below.

Here's what it looks like now;

Schema Generator Community Group has been established to improve the
availability, discovery and innovation of RDFa, Microdata, JSON-LD and
other structured data related tooling. Schema generation tools pertaining
to this group aim to ensure output can be validated with W3C.org Schema
validator or similar tools.

The group will assist others with discovering existing tools, updating
online materials to find tools and supporting the development of new tools.

The goal of this group is to foster the development of the ‘web of data’
through developer support, community engagement and advocacy. Schema gen CG
will also assist by incubatee support for works that includes but are not
limited to support for production of new RDF related tools.



On Tue., 14 Feb. 2017, 12:50 am Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>

> Hi All,
> I've had a read of the initial documentation about the inception of the
> group and as discussed elsewhere, i think it's important to ensure we're
> building the CG based on principles rather than a product. (which i'm sure
> was the underlying intent).  I've attached a google doc[2] (please feel
> welcome to request edit access to it, but comments are fine also).  I
> haven't put alot of thought into it yet; however one of my considerations
> is whether we should be sticking to RDF rather than simply XML (including
> of course, rdf/xml).
> schema.org (and OGP http://ogp.me/ ) are amongst the many RDF Ontologies
> that exist on the web, some of which can be found here:
> http://lod-cloud.net/
> One of the most important plugin i've been using recently is:
> http://osds.openlinksw.com/  - which helps people see the 'web of data'.
> Herein; some important distinctions exist between "linked data" (or RDF)
> which is part of the semantic web stack; and XML.  I propose we focus on
> schema tools for RDF[3] which includes a bunch of serialization formats[4].
> One of the 'to do items' will be to update existing wiki pages that
> currently has outdated references on them.  I've found it quite difficult
> to find useful tools and have certainly found this part of the frustration
> when people in senior positions tell me that they were unaware the
> 'semantic web' was relevent nowadays.  I think if we're able to help with
> accessibility and descriptions / discovery for tooling; we'll both be able
> to improve opportunities and circumstances in a number of different ways.
> ie: pages to be updated;
> - https://www.w3.org/wiki/SemanticWebTools
> - https://www.w3.org/wiki/Ontology_editors (to a lesser degree).
> Really quickly; with respect to other tools,
> - http://linda.epu.ntua.gr/ which relates to https://github.com/LinDA
> -tools
> - http://protege.stanford.edu/
> - http://json-ld.org/playground/
> - https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool
> Other examples include word press ones like:
> https://wordpress.org/plugins/lh-tools/ &
> https://wordpress.org/plugins/lh-rdf/
> We likely need to make a list of tools, the language / purpose of the
> tools, etc.
> Do we want to have regular Tele Conf / IRC meetings?  I have found in the
> Web Payments / Credentials teams meetings have in-turn forced people to
> keep a schedule.  If interest exists, let us know and we'll see what we can
> do.  In many cases, services like Gitter can also offer an alternative that
> may work better for people world-wide in different timezones.  Implication
> is that we'll need to think about a github location, which i think is very
> doable.
> The group was instigated by Hans Polak[5] who was inspired by his own
> project.  IMHO, we should figure out how to publish ideas on different
> levels to help forge the means for these sorts of projects to get
> under-way.  We may find other W3 opportunities as we do these tasks; and i
> for one,
> I am pleased this group has been created. The amount of frustration and
> time it takes, even with some rather incredible support from W3 experts in
> past; to both find the tools, figure out the flaws, opportunities and
> benefits of tools; and indeed, educate others about them.
> I hope in future, It'll become far easier as we're simply able to flick
> links whilst encouraging more and more people, to get involved with the
> linguistics of ontology, schemas and www service support & design.
> If we can get onto resolving the attached summary about the formation of
> the CG, i'm happy to follow-up with the W3 contact and get the page
> modified.
> Any questions, ever, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me
> directly.
> Timothy Holborn
> skype: sailing_digital
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/schema-gen/
> [2]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-ukwFmcdGs6SwfaMz2RrfFQvG6o2PD8NfFreDAbri-A/edit?usp=sharing
> [3] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework
> [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2017Feb/
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 14:15:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 14 February 2017 14:15:39 UTC