W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Focus of this mailing list

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:53:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFr5q6xyewqVxhPFKA_fySR4FOJpYbMMTwuxZfEyZet91g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Quick reply for now as I'm on the road.

Briefly ...

 * yes, agree there is a need to be clearer on scope of this forum,
mechanisms and process for schema.org collab, and expectations about
'level of detail'
 * It's worth noting the existence of W3C's Community Group mechanism,
http://www.w3.org/community/ ... for schema.org-oriented or any other
vocab collab
 * I'm working on a 'how we work' post/page for schema.org, as part of
v1.0 (and 1.1) release planning
 * http://groups.google.com/group/lrmi/ (for LRMI)
http://groups.google.com/group/sports-schema-collab/ (for Sports) and
others are examples of nearby public lists where people are working
through detail of proposal

The basic recipe for getting "we should add this" consensus from the
schema.org group is that we have sense that there is healthy level of
interest from significant producers/publishers and likely consumers;
that the specifics of schema have had some careful attention from
wider community / relevant experts, and a sense of 'rough consensus'
here and in nearby fora that such an addition would be progress. There
are other factors (like putting some thought into relationship between
additions and existing parts of the schema) but I'll not try to be
complete here.


Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:54:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:46 UTC