☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > > On 11/08/2014 12:43 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote: >> >>> >>> rektide@voodoowarez.com<mailto:rektide@voodoowarez.com> >>> 07 November 2014 23:03 >>> It's highly disappointing to me to see this working group continue >>> to run away from the existing vocabulary projects out there and work >>> to define it's own vocab. There is so much important work to be done >>> surrounding use cases, yet this group is literally back to square 0, >>> defining vocabs. >> > > [...] >> >> You cite exclusively Schema.org, which we have excluded for the >> following reasons: >> >> 1. Schema.org is not produced by any standards organization, nor does >> it have any defined open contributor model. While the organizations >> behind Schema.org do accept contributions, they hold veto powers >> over any modifications >> 2. Schema.org alone is not sufficient for our use cases >> 3. Several of us find the technical quality of Schema.org lacking. The >> design of Schema.org contains numerous things which are illogical >> and badly designed. >> > > If by saying "we have excluded" you refer to Social WG, could you please > provide an archive link to such RESOLUTION? I don't believe there has been any formal resolution on the matter (nor any call for one), but that is certainly the "rough working consensus" that I've gotten). There are certainly a number of members who are likely to -1 any motion which makes us dependent upon schema.org (something something Tantek something something volcanoes with fax numbers, for one) - Owen
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2014 22:02:31 UTC