Re: The Vocabulary, Schema.org governance, etc.

Richard, Martin,

 Thank you for the support. Means a lot to us.

guha

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
wrote:

> +1
>
> In my opinion, most of the concerns raised in this thread are “What if’s”
> that current, albeit short, history has not raised any indications of
> coming to fruition.
>
> My experience has shown this to be one of the most agile, active,
> pragmatic, consensus based processes of its type that I have been engaged
> with.
>
> Maybe the legal stuff needs a bit of tweaking, but for the rest:  “It
> ain’t broke, so don’t fix it!"
>
> ~Richard
>
> On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:25, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
>
> > I think that
> >
> > 1. the current process is sufficiently open and
> > 2. a problem with a more open and more formal process is that the
> sponsors of schema.org have to be able to make decisions based on their
> requirements for products and services, about which they cannot speak
> publicly, and that they want and need the power to overrule community
> agreement.
> >
> > I have so far not seen any decision regarding schema.org that limits
> the usefulness of schema.org for third-party applications in research and
> business.
> >
> > We may need a better legal framework, but that is about everything
> missing, IMO.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 25 Sep 2014, at 03:01, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 24 Sep 2014, at 20:09, trond.huso@ntb.no wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there a problem why not w3c (or any other organization, although
> w3c seems most natural) could govern the vocabulary being displayed on
> schema.org?
> >>
> >> No, there is nothing wrong with a W3C (etc) taking on "a" Common Web
> Ontology (COW).
> >> I do acknowledge Dan's comments about the "traditional" W3C Process -
> which has a focus on specs, that once complete,  change infrequently.
> >> But W3C has be doing more work on vocabs in the past years (PROV, SKOS,
> ORG, DCAT, ADMS...)
> >>
> >>> Since the work being done is as open as possible, what steps has to be
> made to make it even more open?
> >>> As it looks now, it feels as the work begin done is for an open,
> transparent and a non-profit organization.
> >>
> >> I would say that a possible best scenario would to start by forming a
> W3C Community Group (that way, all the governance is "covered") and there
> is a clearer path to W3C full REC track work in the future.
> >>
> >> Being a CG, would mean the process to publish specs is completely up to
> the group - so weekly updates can be published etc (to meet Dan's concerns).
> >>
> >> It would also give the CG time to work on a wider vocab development
> process (and model) that would benefit W3C-wide in the longer term - so
> that there is a common framework to all vocab work across w3c developments.
> This point is something that we - as the Vocab Task Force - should be
> considering more seriously.
> >>
> >> Cheers...
> >> Renato Iannella
> >> Semantic Identity
> >> http://semanticidentity.com
> >> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>