- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:34:20 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 12/19/2014 07:23 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > 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. great news Harry, thank you for helping with further clarifications on this issue! > > P.S.: Apologies re last meeting, was dealing with European Commission, > who renewed our funding for working on the Social Web for next year! thanks for dealing with all this unfortunate EU bureaucracy!
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 18:34:45 UTC