RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Assume that "Microform", for example, wouldn't make the editorial cut into schema.org proper. What is your feeling about this argument from earlier?

"One advantage of having them in the *.schema.org space (presumably) would be that if someone typed in "microform" in their search box they would discover http://bib.schema.org/Microform. That isn't the case with current external extensions like http://bibliograph.net/Microform."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Summers [mailto:ehs@pobox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:55 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Wallis,Richard; Antoine Isaac; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
> 
> 
> > On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> >
> > I assume the schema.org editors will incorporate the bits they think are
> worthy into schema.org proper. It's the domain-specific remainder bits that
> don't pass their editorial muster that we still need a place for.
> 
> Right, so why can't this vocabulary content live externally on the Web
> (outside of schema.org) until such a time as it is ready to be pulled in? Why
> incubate it at sub-domains of schema.org?
> 
> I guess I'm not convinced that perceived SEO and not having to host an html
> page are worth the cost of complexity at schema.org.
> 
> //Ed

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 14:01:48 UTC