- From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:51:35 +0900
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>, 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: <CAHSr+v28DmbSn909RZc0sN7GZOyeP6gCU0Kc6CLy3M7YBVBB9A@mail.gmail.com>
Ivan, (and Dan) I presume several members from W3C participated in this schema.org workshop in person. If so, are you suppose to share the meeting summary with us ? That might be quite helpful for us to understand what happened in there. Regards, Daniel. On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Daniel, > > 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! > > Thanks > > Ivan > > > 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.orgsite > > 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 > > > > > > > -- Soohong Daniel Park Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D http://www.soohongp.com, twitter:@natpt
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 05:52:15 UTC