public-vocabs@w3.org from June 2012 by date

Saturday, 30 June 2012

• Review example inconsistencies Robert Schroeder
• Re: Inconsistent markup for JobPosting Adrian Giurca

Friday, 29 June 2012

• accessibility vocab Liddy Nevile
• Re: Audience proposal [and LRMI, and http://schema.org/Audience] Greg Grossmeier
• Re: Follow up on singularity changeset Stéphane Corlosquet
• Re: Follow up on singularity changeset Dan Brickley
• Follow up on singularity changeset Stéphane Corlosquet
• Inconsistent markup for JobPosting Stéphane Corlosquet

Thursday, 28 June 2012

• Re: Proposing new property for �Product� item describing most recent product version Kenley Lamaute
• RE: E: TVRadioSchema extension to schema.org - "free" property Evain, Jean-Pierre
• Re: MedicalCode Dan Brickley
• Re: MedicalCode Renato Iannella

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

• Re: Audience proposal [and LRMI, and http://schema.org/Audience] Danny Ayers
• Re: Audience proposal [and LRMI, and http://schema.org/Audience] Dan Brickley
• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Ed Summers
• Re: MedicalCode Dan Brickley
• MedicalCode Renato Iannella

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

• Re: Audience proposal James M Snell
• Re: Audience proposal Dan Brickley
• Health and Medical vocabulary for schema.org Dan Brickley
• Audience proposal Egor Antonov
• Re: Author Markup Dan Brickley
• Re: Author Markup Hakan KIRKAN

Monday, 25 June 2012

• Author Markup Justin Krutz

Friday, 22 June 2012

• Re: Vocabularies for Technical Publishing Joshua Wulf

Saturday, 23 June 2012

• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Thad Guidry
• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Jason Douglas
• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Thad Guidry

Friday, 22 June 2012

• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Joshua Shinavier
• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Kingsley Idehen
• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Jason Douglas
• Re: schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Kingsley Idehen
• schema.org/sameThingAs proposal Dan Brickley

Thursday, 21 June 2012

• Re: What is the format for GeoShape properties? Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

• Re: What is the format for GeoShape properties? Lin Clark
• Re: What is the format for GeoShape properties? Kenley Lamaute
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Kingsley Idehen
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: webschema-ISSUE-13 (Describing Real Estate): Schema.org should document how best to describe Real Estate [Feedback on Schema.org] Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Kingsley Idehen
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Kingsley Idehen
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Kingsley Idehen
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Adrian Giurca
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: webschema-ISSUE-13 (Describing Real Estate): Schema.org should document how best to describe Real Estate [Feedback on Schema.org] Hakan KIRKAN

Tuesday, 19 June 2012

• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Alexander Botero-Lowry
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Alexander Botero-Lowry
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Egor Antonov
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Alexander Botero-Lowry
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Stéphane Corlosquet
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Egor Antonov
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: OGP/schema.org mappings Jesse Weaver
• Re: OGP/schema.org mappings Jesse Weaver
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types James M Snell
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Adrian Giurca
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Adrian Giurca
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Adrian Giurca
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Adrian Giurca

Monday, 18 June 2012

• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Stéphane Corlosquet
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Alexander Botero-Lowry
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: TVRadioSchema extension to schema.org Richard Wallis
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Alexander Botero-Lowry
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Guha
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Egor Antonov
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Egor Antonov
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Sandhaus, Evan
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Jason Douglas
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Adrian Giurca
• RE: TVRadioSchema extension to schema.org Evain, Jean-Pierre
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• TVRadioSchema extension to schema.org Evain, Jean-Pierre
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Egor Antonov
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Phil Barker

Sunday, 17 June 2012

• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp

Saturday, 16 June 2012

• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Guha
• Proposing new property for ‘Product’ item describing most recent product version Kenley Lamaute
• Re: Vocabularies for Technical Publishing Kenley Lamaute
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Martin Hepp
• What is the format for GeoShape properties? Lin Clark
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Gregg Kellogg
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Gregg Kellogg
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Peter Mika
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Gregg Kellogg
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Gregg Kellogg
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Ivan Herman

Friday, 15 June 2012

• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Greg Grossmeier
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Phil Barker
• additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types Dan Brickley
• Issue tracker - automatic mails Dan Brickley
• webschema-ISSUE-18 (schema.org 1.0 release): Tracking issue for schema.org 1.0 release [Feedback on Schema.org] Web Schemas TF Issue Tracker

Thursday, 14 June 2012

• JobPosting specialCommitments property Aaron Bradley
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Dan Brickley
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Martin Hepp
• Re: For review: Schema.org/Discussion John Breslin
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Dan Brickley
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Phil Barker

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Greg Grossmeier
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Greg Grossmeier
• ANN: The Accommodation Ontology for Hotels, Camping, Guesthouses, etc. Martin Hepp
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Peter Pinch
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Aaron Bradley
• Vocabularies for Technical Publishing Lin Clark
• Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org Martin Hepp

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

• Re: Focus of this mailing list Dan Brickley
• Re: Focus of this mailing list Melvin Carvalho
• Focus of this mailing list Martin Hepp
• Re: Schema for legal judgements? Michael Below

Friday, 8 June 2012

• Re: schema.org update from SemTech panel Myers, Jay
• Weather Proposal for schema Andrea Pernici
• Re: schema.org update from SemTech panel Melvin Carvalho
• schema.org update from SemTech panel Dan Brickley

Thursday, 7 June 2012

• Re: webschema-ISSUE-17 (Labo[u]r Union missing): schema.org has NGO, EducationalOrganization, SportsTeam, GovernmentOrganization but not Labo[ur] Union [Feedback on Schema.org] Aaron Bradley

Wednesday, 6 June 2012

• webschema-ISSUE-17 (Labo[u]r Union missing): schema.org has NGO, EducationalOrganization, SportsTeam, GovernmentOrganization but not Labo[ur] Union [Feedback on Schema.org] Web Schemas TF Issue Tracker

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

• Re: Premium Video Content Markup Paul K. Young
• Re: Premium Video Content Markup Martin Hepp

Saturday, 2 June 2012

• For review: Schema.org/Discussion Charlie Jiang

Friday, 1 June 2012

• Re: New proposal: health & medical extensions to schema.org Aaron Brown
• Please review historical-data.org schema.org extensions for geneaology/history Dan Brickley
• [1st CFP-Call for Patterns] 3rd Workshop on Ontology Patterns (WOP2012) at ISWC 2012 Mari Carmen Suárez de Figueroa Baonza

Last message date: Saturday, 30 June 2012 21:12:10 UTC