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

On 28 April 2015 at 18:11, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
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
>

Could you explain in more detail why a dependency of schema.org is needed
or desirable?


>
> 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/
>
>