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

+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
>> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 14:31:45 UTC