W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Proposing two new SWIG Task forces

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 04:41:13 -0700
Cc: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org Annotation" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ramanathan V Guha <guha@google.com>
Message-Id: <245DD554-ADB5-4716-9552-98FF9DE5CE11@w3.org>
To: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>

I believe this is very much in scope. The goal of the task force is to look at various vocabularies, see how they relate and evolve, etc. I would encourage you to join the task force and present the vocabulary there.

Bottom line: yes, it is absolutely relevant!



On Sep 21, 2011, at 22:45 , Soohong Daniel Park wrote:

> Ivan, 
> As you know, MAWG (Media Annotation Working Group) is charted to develop a
> simple ontology mapping between different metadata annotations on the web,
> and the two specs are now in PR-Ready/CR-Ready status. In our group, we'd
> think to expand our ontology mapping to schema.org vocabulary, although we
> do not much information on schema.org yet. 
> Are there any relation between MAWG mapping and schema mapping in [6] below
> ? Is it a totally irrelevant ?
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
> Thanks in advance, Daniel (for Media Annotation Working Group)
> --------------------------
> Soohong Daniel Park
> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
> http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:57 PM
> To: W3C Semantic Web IG
> Subject: Proposing two new SWIG Task forces
> 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

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
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 11:40:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:26 UTC