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

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

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:55:39 -0700
Message-ID: <553FBB8B.5070707@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
To me, the big question is: is there anything in schema.org that is 
unique, that is not covered by any other vocabulary? I ask this because 
it seems to me that schema.org is a convenient aggregation of terms 
under a single namespace, but does not introduce anything new. If there 
were not the requirement that schema.org be in a single namespace, would 
it even need to exist?


On 4/28/15 9:11 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> 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/

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:56:09 UTC

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