Re: schema.org governance

Renato,

I agree. As schema.org implementations become more established, and acquire
general importance, it would be good to see principles of open
governance reflected
in the administration of the same.
I have been following to see what schema was about and where it was
going, and I have been puzzled and interested at the same time,

However,
1. informally, this list has been doing that- gathering community
input, and as you have seen, input is taken on board and credited, so
well done there, (well dan?)

2.there's a case to be made against the 'overheads' of governance. Single handed
missions can be sleek, the less burdensome (but not scalable and not
sustainable in the long term perhaps)

There are however hybrid models of participatory governance,  whereby
for example
the 4 owners set up a process of taking recommendations and inputs
from the community (including voting if necessary) in a more
formalized/structured process, and each decision taken by the owners
without the community input/vote is justified by the owners in some
other way  (community said A, we did B because......)   Imho something
along these lines could
ensure transparency and participation, while also ensuring the
autonomy of the owners

or something like that?

PDM






On 9/19/14, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:
>
> Dan, yes, some of us have been in this space for a long time....
>
> I am not discounting the effort gone/going into schema.org, in fact, I think
> it has taken a leading and more important role as "the general web
> vocabulary".
>
> My question then is, at what point does "oversight of the search engine
> companies" become an issue to the benefit of consensus-driven open
> vocabularies?
> In particular, in the context of a W3C environment.
>
> For example, Martin raised 3 excellent points [1], but I cannot see those
> issues been discussed/resolved at all in this Task Force.
>
> Now, given that schema.org is owned by 4 companies, you can argue that "it's
> their business"...which is fine....but then the community will be weary of
> the "some accountability" [2] being offered.
>
> I truly believe that a general web vocabulary is important for the future of
> the (semantic) web....I just believe that such an important semantic
> infrastructure of the web should be governed by an open transparent process
> (like a W3C process).
>
>
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Sep/0175.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 06:14:14 UTC