Re: Proposal for Schema.org extension mechanism

On 17 February 2015 at 01:16, Kingsley  Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/15 4:48 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>
> On 02/15/2015 08:48 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/15 12:19 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Schema.org addresses the needs of a community that wasn't optimally
>> served by the generic Semantic Web meme. A lot of that (as already
>> stated) has all to do with the incentives that arise naturally from the
>> visible support of Google, Yandex, Yahoo!, and Microsoft (via Bing!).
>> That's massive, and its negates the prescriptive specification problem
>> that's dogged RDF from the onset. Ironically, if RDF was correctly
>> pitched as a formalization of what was already in use, we would have
>> reduced 17 years to something like 5, no kidding!
>>
>> For instance, Imagine if <link/> and "Link:" had been incorporated into
>> the RDF narrative as existing notations for representing entity
>> relations? Basically, Web Masters, HTML+Javascript developers, and the
>> Microformats (now IndieWeb folks) would have be far less confused and
>> resistant to the RDF -- especially as would have prevented the massive
>> RDF/XML blob of confusion that ultimately obscured everything.
>
> You may find this discussion relevant:
> https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
>
>
> It even has a Linked Open Data URI:
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/https/github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
> .
>
> Aside from the issues identified by the HTTP URI above, there's a
> fundamental need to actually acknowledge the fact that <link/> and "Link:"
> are notations (HTML and HTTP respectively) for representing entity
> relationship types (relations). And by implication a notation for
> representing subject->predicate->object statements --  which actually
> demonstrates that RDF is a retrospective standardization of what was already
> in use on the Web, as any standard should be.

This larger conversation has been rumbling along since Nov'96.
http://www.w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-link

For the purposes of this current thread can we nudge things back
towards discussion of schema.org extensions?

cheers,

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2015 08:34:02 UTC