- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:38:50 +0100
- To: "public-social-interest@w3.org" <public-social-interest@w3.org>
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: On Vocabulary Draft and Schema.org Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:23:53 +0000 Resent-From: public-socialweb@w3.org Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:23:44 +0100 From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> To: public-socialweb@w3.org <public-socialweb@w3.org> We've been discussing this internally inside W3C. We think it's fine to go forward *if* the URIs that overlap with schema.org are clearly demarcated as such and due credit is given. There's a few options here, and James can chose whatever way he likes: We can either add a note that for overlapping names, the namespace is "to be determined". If the WG prefers, one can also to say for terms that have overlap: "these terms are spelled and have the same definitions as the identical terms in schema.org" or "these terms are the term as defined by schema.org on yyyy-mm-dd" What we don't want is copying from schema.org that is unattributed or seems to be a "fork" of schema.org without due acknowledgement. By the time this has to hit Last Call/CR, we should have the relationship with schema.org more clear and this should make life easier for all involved, ideally so that we can refer to schema.org URIs directly and re-use them re a stable normative reference. cheers, harry P.S.: Apologies re last meeting, was dealing with European Commission, who renewed our funding for working on the Social Web for next year!
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 18:39:18 UTC