Re: For review: Schema.org / Good Relations integration

This is great news for commerce :-)

Jay



On 5/11/12 11:30 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

>Via http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals
>
>Excerpting from http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/GoodRelations
>
>"""The schema.org team and Martin Hepp (Good Relations project lead)
>have been discussing integration of a version of Good Relations into
>schema.org.
>
>The idea follows the precedent with IPTC's rNews, whose vocabulary was
>added in 2011. The schema.org site would give credit in a similar form
>to rNews, and Good Relations as a project would continue
>independently. However the majority of GR's terms would be reflected
>into schema.org's core vocabulary.
>
>* See 
>[https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Kx63gW9DBky1j97Jpwl3dU9k0pKPSgCT
>3EntTVvGjX4
>public working document]
>* The issues [https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/15 Add
>Time for xsd:time, DateTime for xsd:datetime] and [14: Schema.org
>booleans (True/False) vs RDF 'true/false'] stem from this
>collaboration.
>* See also the [[WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations|ExternalEnumerations]]
>document.
>* See [http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/ Good Relations]
>site for background, e.g.
>[http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Quickstart quickstart] page.
>* Schema.org already has [http://schema.org/Offer Offer] and related
>terms, but will benefit from adding detail from Good Relations. [...]
>"""
>
>
>
>I'm sure many of you here are famliar with Good Relations already.
>Martin Hepp and the schema.org team have been discussion the
>possibility of integrating GR into schema.org, following the precedent
>of the earlier IPTC/rNews schema which was added last year. The idea
>is that we would add class and property definitions from GR into
>schema.org, alongside source acknowledgement / credit in the relevant
>pages (see http://schema.org/Article for an rNews example).
>
>Martin has a public working document linked from
>http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/GoodRelations which has the full
>details. As you'll see this is a substantial piece of work, so we
>welcome in particular detailed review comments on the specifics. The
>issues http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/14 and
>http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/15 are directly related
>btw.
>
>cheers,
>
>Dan
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 16:43:02 UTC