W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > November 2020

Re: Annotating terms of services

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:15:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6nSDZU_T-wyv09efSUjp9f0G9HehnktymqW8hj3A03VA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Cc: ALain <alain.couillault@apoliade.com>, schema org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 11:35, Richard Wallis <
richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:

> Alain,
> Good to see the work in this area.
> In answer to your questions:
>    1. I will take a look and contribute to the forum.  A quick glance
>    indicates that proposals may benefit from a little input around the general
>    style of approach in Schema.org.
>    2. In general terms the process operates thus:
>       - Discussion either on this discussion list or via issue(s) raised
>       on the Schema.org Github repo
>       <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg> come to a consensus as to
>       the need for, proposed approach, and detail of additions and changes to the
>       vocabulary.  This could be anything from minor changes to the wording of
>       term descriptions, additional example scenarios, through to the definition
>       of a set of new Types & Properties.
>       - For any significant changes, a definition of the proposed terms
>       plus associated examples is created in a forked version of the repository.
>       - A Pull Request to merge those changes into the codebase is
>       submitted
>       - If successful the Request is merged into the code base and the
>       changes appear in the next release of the vocabulary
> As general guidelines - absolutely this makes sense. In this specific case
I should also add that as a project we have been cautious about getting too
deep into such topics. It could make most sense to explore this work in the
mode of "external extension" i.e. following the example of GS1. Their
independent but schema.org-compatible vocabulary is published and managed
independently at http://gs1.org/voc/ . By "too deep" here I am thinking of
efforts that try to formalize the legal *content* of terms of service or
privacy pages. The suggestion to distinguish those different kinds of page
is much more straightforward and we should look into doing that, whereas
formalizing the contents of either would be a project on the scale of
something like P3P, and not to be undertaken casually...


> ~Richard.
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 09:54, ALain <alain.couillault@apoliade.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> We have been working for a while on the description of legal documents
>> such as Privacy Notices and Terms of Services. You will find more on our
>> website here: http://www.legicrowd.org/.
>> We are currently working on some possible extension to schema.org: in
>> short, to properly describe such pages, we need to add some generic
>> types (for example LegalDocument) and types and properties which are
>> more specific (like personal data related types).
>> You can find our work in progress at this page:
>> http://www.legicrowd.org/schema/ and here
>> http://www.legicrowd.org/index.php/mark-up-for-terms-of-services-and-privacy-notices/
>> .
>> So I have two questions:
>> 1. the more the merrier! For each modification (proposed type or change
>> in existing type), there is a forum for comments and discussions. Any
>> feedback will be more than welcome!
>> 2. I sort of read the schema.org website and I am not quite sure what
>> the process is to propose extensions to the existing schema.org. Could
>> anyone provide some 'enlightments'.
>> Happy annotating!
>> Dr Alain Couillault
>> LegiCrowd Projet Leader
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2020 12:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 10 November 2020 12:16:31 UTC