> On 28 Nov 2013, at 23:10, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > But I object to the idea of using schema.org - among other things, using a namespace rooted in a domain you don't control is a terrible idea. I control neither schema.org nor w3.org, so by that logic using either is a terrible idea. > And holding namespaces for RDF fundamentals is a long way outside schema.org's mission, I have some news for you. May I direct your attention to http://schema.org/Property http://schema.org/Class http://schema.org/domainIncludes http://schema.org/rangeIncludes http://schema.org/sameAs http://schema.org/additionalType That's a pretty good start and I'd like to see more. > whereas it seems an obvious thing to expect W3C to do. W3C does a fine job *holding* namespaces for RDF fundamentals. But that's not enough. W3C does a terrible job at removing obstacles to adoption that were designed into these namespaces in the distant past. Best, Richard
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 07:22:09 UTC