- From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:38:16 +0000
- To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
- CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Paola, Perhaps vertical is not the best word, but certainly addressing the use cases of an industry/business that is only a small part of the W3C membership. AFAIK, W3C has now industry-oriented interest groups, but even that is a relatively new creation and didn't exist when schema.org started. Cheers, Peter On 9/25/14, 4:20 PM, "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: >Hellow Peter > >thanks for sharing insights > >makes sense, but...... > > not sure I can see schema.org purely as vertical > >would have thought that vertical is 'domain oriented'' >while horizontal is it applies across domains > >no? > >that may depend on a given worldview perhaps ? :-) > > > >PDM > > > > > > >On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >> Hi Renato, >> >> The W3C in particular did not want to take on vertical vocabulary >>projects >> in the past. Tim B-L emphasized in multiple talks that the W3C would >>like >> to focus on developing ontology languages, and let industry develop >> vertical solutions. (To me the examples you mentioned such as SKOS and >> PROV are part of the language infrastructure.) >> >> schema.org is such a vertical solution based on the needs of large web >> consumers. >> >> Best, >> Peter >> >> >>
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 14:39:52 UTC