W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > October 2017

Re: No more Schema.org data on YouTube

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:03:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok34=BMejtRRm+Ju7AEnkTCsE8pxDU1y1GAz_CZ+iW5-+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: Hans Polak <info@polak.es>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
nice start...

I'm aware of w3id[1] alongside the odrl[2] work and impending vcwg related
pipelines, which is a far from exhaustive list.  If the standards
themselves require vocab that in-turn requires a 'URI of truth', would make
sense that it's either something that could be done via IETF (ie: expand
RFC publishing formats?) or W3C...

The dead-link issue is frustrating. One case that comes to mind is work
done by melvin on w3id.org/cc --> the vocab was on a site that's now been
taken down (rww.io or similar); so that work seems kinda lost...  even
frustrating from simply a prov point of view.

Do we know how the wayback machines deals with RDF?   I have to look into

[1] https://github.com/perma-id/w3id.org
[2] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:45 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> Very broad questions but I'll have a go.
> In terms of core w3c recommendation-track groups defining their own
> schemas, the increased use of Github and the moves towards a "living spec"
> model are encouraging, since slow waterfall style development is rather
> awkward for descriptive schemas. I expect we will also see some impact of
> Shacl and/or Shex languages for characterising much tighter data structures
> than RDFS/OWL can define. Typing this on a phone on a train but hope to
> flesh out the latter thoughts soon.
> Dan
> On 9 Oct 2017 14:39, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan,
> schemas are playing an increasing role in the future of standards.  as an
> elder of the particular field, have you any view on the future of
> ontologies & W3C?
> IMHO where standards don't work without particular vocab; my thoughts are
> that some modern thinking likely needs to be put into it.
> Tim.H.
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:24 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>> To stress Charles' point once more, there are 100s of people on this
>> list. I fear none of them will get much out of speculation on the internal
>> architecture of Google's ( / YouTube's) Web infrastructure, and those of us
>> with some modest knowledge of it can't talk much about it anyway. That said
>> I strongly suspect the particular issue under discussion is simply a bug.
>> Out of scope for this group's real focus.
>> Let's please go back to talking about standards and schemas, rather than
>> about Google!
>> Dan
>> On 9 Oct 2017 10:01, "Hans Polak" <info@polak.es> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> > However would still be interesting to know why they do that.
>>> Just a guess, but when you serve dynamic content, both speed and size
>>> matter. In this case, I'd venture that speed is an issue. When a request
>>> comes in, one check to see if it's a browser is faster than adding the
>>> schema.org info.
>>> A different model would result in higher speeds, but the "serve all
>>> requests dynamically" model is the standard. I have done some work on a
>>> "mixed content" server, but haven't pursued it. For organizations like
>>> Google, having a "mixed content" server would result in huge savings. Just
>>> saying.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hans Polak
Received on Monday, 9 October 2017 14:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:37 UTC