Re: Redefine and reuse?

Karen,

Is it your wish or intent to have things bubble up into Schema.org quicker,
perhaps even existing proposals and extensions, with the idea that they are
"beta" or "in_proposal" ...rather than them living under the
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/.....
<http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas> until
they are "accepted" into Schema.org officially ?

I'd be for a "beta" label somewhere on the main site, but the problem with
that is the main Schema.org site is not accessible for editing (it is not a
wiki, and never intended to be), and so it was determined that a Wiki would
be best to mock things up for proposal.  It would be "really, really swell"
to let folks know that come to Schema.org that many cool things are
"in_proposal" without having them to look away too much from the main
Schema.org site... I agree with that, if that is the mantra your trying to
draw out.   There is a lot of room for improvement upon the main Schema.org
site itself that could be done for better collaboration all around, imho.

 (  NOTE TO DAN !  :-)  )
One thing that could really help is on the main site landing page say and
note :

1. We allow extensions and if you do not find what your looking for, then
read our docs about Extending Schema.org at
http://www.schema.org/docs/extension.html
2. We have Many more additional Types and Properties not found yet in
Schema.org.  Some are in flux and under discussion and proposal, please
join the discussion at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Thad, perhaps I was too flip. We cannot assume that everyone will read
> everything on the schema.org site before marking up some HTML. And we
> can't assume that everyone adding markup to a Web page is a "developer."
> The more apparent and accessible the schema information is, the more likely
> it is to be used. Expecting people to look for and make use of additional
> documentation in their particular area may not be a successful model.
>
> It looks to me like the medical community model is that experts will
> create the data, and everyone from the public to experts will consume it.
> They may be able to assume that those creating the data will be trained to
> do so. Bibliographic data is widely created by people who are not experts
> in bibliographic data creation, and who get no training in that area; this
> includes most authors, many readers (LibraryThing, GoodReads), and lot of
> merchants. (For the bibliographic skills of the latter, look at data
> provided by Amazon's third party booksellers.)
>
> I'd rather not expect that users of bibliographic data need to go further
> than users of, say, event information, in order to make use of schema.org.
> I actually want rank amateurs to be able to contribute in this area (unlike
> medicine, which for good reasons may wish to discourage amateurs). It may
> be a small barrier, but it could still be a barrier.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 7/23/13 1:15 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>
>> Actually Karen,
>>
>> Schema.org does indeed ONLY WORK by reading documentation and applying
>> it.  And the hope is that everyone does indeed read it, use it, and
>> promote it.  It is completely up to users & web developers to
>> implement...and something that does not have any effect or have any
>> synergy unless web developers and users embrace that documentation we
>> call, Schema.org   It means nothing without proper documentation AND the
>> use of it.
>>
>> (Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc, cannot force developers to make modifications
>> to their sites....as hard as they have tried.  Sure they can apply some
>> bot technology to make some assumptions about what we mean given a
>> certain tag or string...but that can only get you so far.  Ambiguity
>> rears its head often.  And that ambiguity is the basis for Schema.org,
>> least I remind you. :-)  )
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 7/23/13 7:43 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>         I suspect here one answer is "domain-specific documentation",
>>         along the
>>         lines of http://schema.org/docs/__**meddocs.html<http://schema.org/docs/__meddocs.html>
>>
>>         <http://schema.org/docs/**meddocs.html<http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html>>
>> - if we don't have an
>>         extension mechanism available that allows processors to fall back
>> to
>>         "sku" when they encounter "callnumber", then having a
>>         "Documentation for
>>         bibliographic types" page that says "Here's how you mark up
>>         items that
>>         you have available for sale or loan using Offer", with examples,
>>         should
>>         fill the gap reasonably well. Particularly if said documentation
>> is
>>         available _from_ the schema.org <http://schema.org> site.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Dan,
>>
>>     While not opposed to documentation or "best practices," given human
>>     nature I am wary of developing anything that only works if the users
>>     have read the documentation. ;-)
>>
>>
>>     kc
>>
>>     --
>>     Karen Coyle
>>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>
>>     ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>>     skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/**en/thad_guidry<http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>> >
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**thadguidry/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>> >
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>


-- 
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>