W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2015

Need for W3C 'living' vocabulary & possibility of forking schema.org?

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:11:58 +0200
Message-ID: <553FB14E.7000502@wwelves.org>
To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
CC: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Hello,

Next week Social WG will gather in Paris for 3rd face to face
meeting[1]. I proposed for the agenda topic of maintaining a 'living'
vocabulary, already placing myself an image of xkcd:Standards (927)[2]
next to it.

I already made multiple attempts to clarify situation of depending on
schema.org in W3C specs. To my understanding, as for today situation
looks as follows:
 - W3C does NOT approve dependency on schema.org
 + W3C does approve dependency on microformats.org

While, I find big appreciation to both efforts and reference both in
related Social WG/IG issues. Microformats makes impression of hostile to
RDF[3], but at the same time many people considers it more 'open' than
schema.org. I must admit not really understanding myself W3C position on
allowing dependency on microformats.org and NOT allowing dependency on
schema.org

While W3C hosts in it's namespace multiple 'static' vocabularies. As of
today it doesn't seem to maintain a 'living' vocabulary. Which continues
to evolve in a way similar to schema.org or microformats.org

As more and more W3C groups start using Linked Data and need to
recommend use of shared vocabularies. Existence of something similar to
schema.org might come beneficial for all those groups. Once again
assuming here that direct use of schema.org will never become an option
for W3C specs. At the same time I already notice use of schema.org terms
in not normative way in various drafts, especially in CGs.

By writing this email, I hope to present current state of things, at
least as far as I understand them. And invite community to share ideas
about need for such shared 'living' vocabulary which W3C will approve
for normative dependencies.

1) What do you think about forking schema.org under W3C namespace,
making small adjustments but keeping it as much as possible compatible
with evolving schema.org, and later possibly merging them again?
2) What do you think about creating such 'living' vocabulary from
scratch and making sure to incorporate experience from schema.org and
microformats.org communities?
3) What do you think about creating tools and educational resources,
which would lower current barriers in using even minimal RDF reasoning
e.g. RDFa Vocabulary Entailment[4] and hope that people will use it to
deal with mapping between terms in various existing Semantic Web vocabs?[5]
4) Do you see any other way, than creating such 'living' vocabulary
which provides an alternative to W3C publishing another 'static' and
duplicating many concepts already existing in schema.org and
microformats into Activity Streams 2.0 Vocabulary[6]?

Constructive feedback much appreciated!

[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04
[2] https://xkcd.com/927/
[3] http://microformats.org/wiki/triples
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_vocab_entailment
[5] http://lov.okfn.org/
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:12:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:40 UTC