Re: Proposing two new SWIG Task forces

Hi Valentina,

All the info about these groups including how to join them can found on
these pages:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html

Steph
On Oct 20, 2011 12:43 PM, "valentina presutti" <vpresutti@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ivan, all
>
> I am very much interested in these two task forces and willing to actively
> participate in it.
> I am part of a EU project (IKS) that is focused on integrating semantic web
> technologies in CMS platforms: schema.org is in the watching list of all
> CMS providers, as you can imagine. My group is responsible to support them
> in what concerns vocabularies, ontologies and related things.
>
> Can you give me some pointers in order to be updated on the tf status and
> see how to join it?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Cheers,
> Valentina
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Valentina Presutti
> Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
> Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC)
> National Research Council (CNR)
> Via Nomentana 56, Rome - Italy
>
> office phone: +39 0644161538
> email: valentina.presutti@cnr.it
> www: http://stlab.istc.cnr.it/User:ValentinaPresutti
> twitter: http://twitter.com/vpresutti
> skype bluvale
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> One of the exciting events of the past few months was the joint
> announcement of schema.org [1] from three major search engine providers
> (Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft). It was a major step in the recognition that
> structured data, embedded in Web pages or otherwise, has a huge role to play
> on the Web. Put another way: structured data on web sites is definitely now
> mainstream.
>
> The role of the schema.org site is twofold. It defines a family of
> vocabularies that search engines "understand"; although these vocabularies
> are still evolving, they reflect the areas that search engines consider as
> most important for average Web pages. Independent of the vocabularies,
> schema.org also defines the syntax that search engines understand, i.e.,
> how the vocabularies should be embedded in an HTML page. At the moment the
> emphasis from schema.org is on the usage of microdata[2].
>
> As with all such important events, the announcement of the schema.org site
> has generated lots of discussion on the blogosphere, on different mailing
> lists, twitter, and so on. The discussion crystallized around two,
> technically different set of issues:
>
> - What is the evolution path of the schema.org vocabularies; how do they
> relate to vocabulary developments around the world that have already brought
> us such widely used vocabularies like Dublin Core, GoodRelations, FOAF,
> vCard, the different microformat vocabularies, etc?
>
> - What is the role of RDFa[3] and microformats[4] for search engines; would
> search providers also accept RDFa 1.1 or microformats as an alternative
> encoding of structured data? This also raises the more general issue on how
> microdata and RDFa relate to one another as W3C specifications, and to
> microformats, independently of the specific vocabularies.
>
> These issues will be discussed on the upcoming schema.org workshop in
> Mountain View, CA, on 21 September. They are also within scope of discussion
> within  the SWIG. Accordingly, as a result of a variety of discussions, I am
> proposing two new SWIG Task Forces to discuss these and flesh out solutions.
>  Note that this is also related to a TAG request from June [5].  Assuming
> the proposals are approved, the two Task Forces will be:
>
> 1. Web Schemas Task Force[6], to be chaired by R.V. Guha (Google),
> concentrating on general vocabulary-related discussions. The Task Force's
> focus should be on collaboration around vocabularies, mappings between them,
> and around syntax-neutral vocabulary design and tooling. Issues like
> convergence of various vocabulary schemas, use cases, tools and techniques,
> documentation of mappings and equivalences between schemas, should all be in
> scope for this Task Force.
>
> 2. HTML Data Task Force[7], to be chaired by Jeni Tennison, should conduct
> a technical analysis on the relationship between RDFa and microdata and how
> data expressed in the different formats can be combined by consumers. This
> Task Force may propose modifications in the form of bug reports and change
> proposals on the microdata and/or RDFa specifications where they would help
> users to easily translate between the two syntaxes or use them together. The
> Task Force should also work on a general approach for the mapping of
> microdata to RDF, as well as the mapping of RDFa to microdata JSON.
>
> Both Task Forces should be public, both in terms of joining the respective
> mailing lists or following the discussions via the public archives.
>
> Everybody is welcome!
>
> Ivan Herman
>
> [1] http://www.schema.org
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/
> [4] http://microformats.org/
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0366.html
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html
> [7] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>