- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:39:25 -0700
- To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I would say that schema.org is not a vertical at all, not in scope, nor in participation. It initially was more of a multi-domain upper-middle ontology, but recent additions go fairly far down into quite a few domains. There are certain aspects of schema.org that appear to favour certain kinds of consumers, but I don't think that this makes schema.org a vertical. peter On 09/25/2014 07:20 AM, Paola Di Maio 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 14:39:58 UTC