Re: more schema

On 6 Apr 2013 14:36, "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> reposting under a new subject line
>
>
>> Greetings Schema.org Taskforce
>>
>> Just joined this list, with a couple of things in mind
>>
>> 1. In general, trying to learn about schema.org developments, what's
new, whats happening (or not :-), in particular interested at thsi moment
about  what is happening in library linked data, as I am preparing a talk I
ll give in the summer.
>> if possible pls point me to archives, repositories and
interesting/relevant threads
>> where I can learn the latest
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> I am working with a team of students in India on an exercise in web
information collection/publishing, and we are precisely working on temple
metadata
>>
>> Having found that a schema already exists,
>> http://schema.org/HinduTemple
>> we plan to use it, however we
>> would like to extend it ( data is missing from this schema based on our
>> experience) How can we contribute to refine/improve this particular
schema on schema.org?
>>
>> This for me brings up the question how  the schemas are pulled together
in the first place, based on what knowledge/construct/process?
>>
>> (Since starting the exercise I have learned about this mailing list, so
I may invite some students to join here if they so wish)

It's pretty informal. Basically discuss things here, use the wiki, try to
consider how your extension relates to other areas of the schema. Schemas
that seem to have some consensus and interest from publishers and consumers
then bubble to the top of the todo list and eventually get added.

I'll be offline for this week, but let's pick this up again. It is
reasonable to hope for a more detailed version of this story...

Re drafting proposals, they are strongest when grounded in examples that
represent content already published in the www.

Dan

>>
>> cheers
>>
>> PDM
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And we're back. Apologies for the hiccup!
>>>
>>> On 5 April 2013 01:48, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>> > Excuse this brief note; I'll write more in a week. We've just
>>> > published a revision to schema.org including substantial new
>>> > vocabulary that improves
>>> >
>>> > The new version is numbered 1.0a indicating that this is approaching a
>>> > full 1.0 release but that we still have a few additions to make before
>>> > we declare we're at a full 1.0.
>>> >
>>> > The 1.0a additions are considered stable, but we will fix any bugs or
>>> > problems that implementors encounter during this 'soft release'.
>>> > Additions include the Datasets vocabulary, LRMI for
>>> > education/learning, technical publishing vocabulary, more vocabulary
>>> > for describing Audiences, and some supporting utility terms for
>>> > describing schema.org types, properties and their inter-relationships.
>>> >
>>> > I won't attempt here to list everyone who contributed to these new
>>> > additions (it deserves a blog post), but thanks for all your hard work
>>> > and patience. There are plenty more additions still in the pipeline
>>> > and I look forward to following this announcement with work towards a
>>> > 1.0b update. In the meantime please share any feedback, issues etc on
>>> > the WebSchemas and LRMI lists.
>>> >
>>> > http://schema.org/docs/full.html as always has pointers to the full
vocabulary.
>>> > For LRMI, http://schema.org/AlignmentObject is the main type,
>>> > alongside additions to http://schema.org/CreativeWork
>>> > For Datasets, we added http://schema.org/Dataset and some nearby
types...
>>> >
>>> > Dan
>>>
>>
>