- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:54:47 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@apple.com>
- Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Hi all, On 30/03/2016 09:23 , Dan Brickley wrote: > From a broader W3C perspective, having Community Groups involved at > TPAC is a very positive thing. At the Chairs Breakfast meeting during > last year's TPAC I argued for greater inclusion of Community Group > chairs and participants within W3C activities. There are now a large > number of CGs across many topics, and everything we can do to > encourage grassroots coordination and communication amongst these > groups, and between these groups and the more heavyweight full Working > Groups is super valuable. While I very well understand the hesitations of those who already have their TPAC week well booked, as well as the issues inherent in not having everyone in the room, I think there would be great value in meeting for TPAC. Discussing things in the meeting does not preclude discussion in the GH tracker; it just means that whatever comes out of the discussion we need to make sure is properly summarised in the relevant issues. Being able to work things out face to face can be very helpful. This can also be a great opportunity to reach out to other groups and people on a variety of topics where we connect. I don't think that a RDFa-versus-Microdata-versus-Microformats discussion is of any use to this group, but a few of us could chat to the HTML people about it. The bib people could talk to DPUB, etc. TPAC is as much about meeting in the group as it is about meeting outside the group. > * I'd suggest (without having yet consulted the other CG chairs) that > a single TPAC CG meeting around schema.org would be preferable to > having 10+ different meetings for the various schema.org-related CGs > listed above > * That the spirit of the event is "for those who are attending TPAC > anyway, or quite likely to for other reasons", rather than "A > must-attend meeting for anyone involved at schema.org" > * It looks like the offer to CGs is that we can have (several?) 2h > meeting slots. I'd suggest we do something like a couple of mornings > (2x 2 slots) if available, one focussed on specific schema topics, the > other on broader issues that take advantage of likely attendees e.g. > publisher/webmaster experience with these technologies, or the > relationship between microdata/rdfa/json-ld with Web Components. Agreed on all of the above. -- • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 13:55:12 UTC