Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

On 11/09/2014 11:01 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> ☮ 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)

Note that there would naturally be concerns for any normative dependency
in a W3C spec on any work produced outside of a standards body. However,
due to the lengthy discussion with the Social Web WG, earlier schema.org
made its licensing compatible with W3C licensing and also now has some
interest in a member submission or 'snapshot' that would be referencable
- so soon I do think it will be possible to reference schema.org,
although whether or not we do so is the decision of the WG. This is a
topic the W3C is actively discussing across multiple working groups, as
it's similar to the situation with W3C and WHATWG specs.

For the Social WG, I think the key would be to not replicate
vocabularies. For example, if we have to chose between a vocabulary with
widespread deployment by real users and a more academic vocabulary, we
should chose the vocabulary with widespread deployment. However, we must
also make sure we have the proper IPR commitments.

Also, note that vocabularies in general are in the scope of the Social
Interest Group, not the Working Group and we'd expect the Working Group
to only adopt the most minimal vocabularies possible needed for its
deliverables, with other vocabularies (such as those around profiles)
being standardized elsewhere in either the W3C or outside the W3C.




> 
> - Owen
>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 23:55:08 UTC