Re: Annotating terms of services

Hello Dan,

Yes, definitely, on our side, we wish not to reinvent the wheel and 
benefit as much as possible from the work done with schema.org.
Regarding 'external' extension, we'll need to seperate what is generic 
and what is specific.

Alain

Le 10/11/2020 à 13:15, Dan Brickley a écrit :
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 11:35, Richard Wallis 
> <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com 
> <mailto: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...
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>     ~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
>     <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://schema.org> website
>         and I am not quite sure what
>         the process is to propose extensions to the existing
>         schema.org <http://schema.org>. Could
>         anyone provide some 'enlightments'.
>
>         Happy annotating!
>
>         Dr Alain Couillault
>         APIL
>         LegiCrowd Projet Leader
>