Re: Proposal for Schema.org extension mechanism

On 03/01/2015 04:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 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
I don't think so, AFAIK schema.org uses same license as W3C

> Is the issue the namespace
I *guess* Google Inc. controlling schema.org domain may come as issue
here for normative dependency...

> Is the issue standards compliance of the schema.org linked data
No clue.

> 
> Any pointers?
I don't know about any official W3C position on this topic published so far.