Re: Proposal for Schema.org extension mechanism

On 1 March 2015 at 15:12, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> On 02/13/2015 10:34 PM, Guha wrote:
> > External Extensions
> >
> > Sometimes there might be a need for a third party (such as an app
> > developer) to create extensions specific to their application. For
> example,
> > Pinterest might want to extend the schema.org concept of ‘Sharing’ with
> > ‘Pinning’. In such a case, they can create schema.pinterest.com and put
> up
> > their extensions, specifying how it links with core schema.org. We will
> > refer to these as external extensions.
>
> Hello,
>
> In recent reply to an older private thread with James M Snell and me,
> Sam Goto linked to this proposal and suggested that we could use
> something like  *schema.activitystrea.ms* if we would want to use
> extended schema.org for Activity Streams 2.0
>
> In recent conversation on IRC #social, Harry Haplin said that as for
> today: "formal and normative dependencies on schema.org should not be
> part of W3C specs right now"
> http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-18/line/1424288449258
>
>
> I wonder if using something in w3.org namespace would resolve that
> issue? e.g. *http://www.w3.org/ns/schema*
>
>
> I also thought about https://w3id.org/schema but possibly it will also
> not satisfy requirements for W3C formal and normative dependencies.
>
> I also know that Credentials CG finds interest in aligning with
> schema.org vocabulary or even having it integrated as Reviewed Extension
> *
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Jan/0004.html
> It looks like it also makes sense for work in Web Payments CG
> * https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/134#issuecomment-56285057
>
> I believe that resolving issue of using schema.org in normative
> dependencies in W3C specifications will make work in various W3C groups,
> which need web vocabularies, much more straight forward.
>

Thanks for raising this.  Personally I think schema.org may work well for
publishing structured data such as offers, but it not the best match for
the mechanics of payments.

Elf, do you have any insight as to why Harry's view was that w3c specs
should not have "formal dependencies" on schema.org right now?

Is the issue the license
Is the issue the namespace
Is the issue standards compliance of the schema.org linked data

Any pointers?


>
> Social WG will have Face to Face meeting on March 17&18 at MIT, James M
> Snell - working on Activity Streams 2.0 Vocabulary, Tantek Çelik long
> time contributor to Microformats and one of Social WG chairs and many
> others will participate in it. I hope we can discuss this topic there
> and by then gather more feedback from W3C staff and schema.org leaders.
> * https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17
> * https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/15
>
> Thank you all for giving some of you attention to this case!
>
>
>