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

Yep, just pointing out the existing constraints imposed by the W3C process.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> I would prefer to not get into the issue of Google join the Social WG at
> this point.
>
> Also, it doesn't make sense for me to come if I cannot participate in the
> discussion.
>
> If you think it would be useful, and if you think TPAC rules are flexible
> enough to allow it, I would be happy to come and answer any questions the WG
> might have.
>
> guha
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just to point out... The Social WG face to face at TPAC is limited to
>> WG members but non-WG members can request to attend as observers.
>> However, observers cannot participate in the discussions. I'm sure
>> you'd be welcome to come participate in the discussions but to do so
>> Google would need to join the WG.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>> > I will certainly come to the TPAC in Santa Clara (assuming no emergency
>> > takes me out of town, etc.). Would it make sense to have a vocabulary or
>> > schema.org related session/track?
>> >
>> > I would be happy to come talk to the Social WG.
>> >
>> > guha
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:59 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>> > <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 09/22/2014 11:15 AM, Peter Mika wrote:
>> >> > Hi Renato, All,
>> >> >
>> >> > Just like Guha, I want to start out by saying how much we appreciate
>> >> > everyone's input and your concern for the growth of the
>> >> > Linked/Data/Semantic Web.
>> >> >
>> >> > The same passion for the Web drove us to start schema.org, and from
>> >> > the
>> >> > beginning we realized that yes, if we create any original text as
>> >> > part
>> >> > of the schema, even if it's just a couple of words, we would own the
>> >> > copyright to it. Exactly for this reason, we are going to great
>> >> > length
>> >> > trying to 'disown' schema.org <http://schema.org/> so that publishers
>> >> > (and really anyone else) can feel completely safe to use it and build
>> >> > on
>> >> > it. The two ways of disowning that we could come up with and
>> >> > implemented
>> >> > so far:
>> >> >
>> >> > #1 A Creative Commons copyright license
>> >> > #2 Our commitment to the W3C Patent Policy
>> >> >
>> >> > The last schema.org TOS update was in fact adding #2.
>> >> >
>> >> > We really hope this is sufficient for everyone to freely use and
>> >> > build
>> >> > upon schema.org. However, we welcome your input on what other steps
>> >> > we
>> >> > could take!
>> >> Hi Peter,
>> >>
>> >> We currently discuss using schema.org for our work in W3 Social Web WG
>> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html
>> >>
>> >> Face to face meeting during TPAC will most likely also include relevant
>> >> conversation. Some of WG members voiced various concerns about building
>> >> on top of schema.org, especially that no one representing any of
>> >> schema.org sponsor organizations participates in Social Web WG process.
>> >>
>> >> I would find it super helpful if at least one of the W3C members who
>> >> co-leads schema.org effort could joint that TPAC session.
>> >> 27&28 October 2014, Santa Clara http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/
>> >>
>> >> Thank you!
>> >> ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>> >
>> >
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 16:07:41 UTC