- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:03:52 +0200
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Hannes Mühleisen <muehleis@inf.fu-berlin.de>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On 2 July 2012 11:06, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: > Interesting stuff. Among top namespaces I see http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/ > I must admit I did not know it ... and looking at > http://data-vocabulary.org/ it seems that it has not been updated since > 2010, and it seems to me widely redundant with, or prefiguration of > schema.org. Yes, it was a Googly ancestor to schema.org. > @schema.org folks : Since http://data-vocabulary.org/ seems to belong to > Google, would not it be a great idea to have a note on this vocabulary along > the lines of ... this vocabulary is obsolete, use schema.org instead? I prefer softer language than 'obsolete' when it comes to RDF vocabularies. People published using it in good faith, it doesn't seem fair to repay their trust and investment by declaring their marked up pages 'obsolete' only a few short years later. Maybe 'archaic' works better (at least in English...). But yes, I will look into getting data-vocabulary.org updated to encourage migration to schema.org. There are lots of reasons to migrate now. cheers, Dan ps. yes, we'll get to rdfa examples for schema.org too
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 10:04:20 UTC