Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 5/11/2009 +0200, Peter Mika wrote:
>>...  I wouldn't mind seeing the W3C to become the organization
>>where ontologies are developed in a collaborative fashion
>>and hosted in a long term,

I would be very interested in this. However, the problem is we really
need some centralization in the vocabulary realm. My guess would be
that a third website (semanticweb.org/Open Web Foundation/vocab.org)
that different bodies (W3C/Yahoo!) can "endorse" and that has a
I would be very interested in this. However, it would really need
actual infrastructure and real maintenance, ideally with feedback from
the world at large built in.


> I'd like W3C to be *one of* the organizations that do this.  That is,
> I wouldn't advocate for an exclusive; if an established community
> already has a forum for working on its vocabulary with appropriate
> (to the context) persistence promises around the namespace
> name(s) then I wouldn't want to give the impression that their
> independent work is somehow a lesser part of the Semantic Web.
>
>>but as you say that requires a process, and in general a certain level of commitment.
>
> Both are achievable.  Some of our older ideas required incremental
> funding that didn't materialize in sufficient magnitude.
>
>>Practically, I would be happy with cleaning up the existing notes
>
> Which is (socially) simpler if the previous authors concur with
> the plan for producing an update.

I concur re vCard.

>>and putting in place some barriers for entry so that people can
>>not easily submit any half-baked ontology as a member submission
>>or note of some sort.
>
> Member Submissions come in many flavors.  The staff has an
> opportunity -- through the Staff Comment -- to refer readers of
> a Member Submission to alternate materials.

The problem with Member Submissions and W3C Notes is an unclear update
mechanism and a lack of maintenance. Vocabs will evolve, and I'm not
sure if the "Rec" model really works for them. The "Note" model works
even less, with the "Note" being published once and then generally
sticking around forever. Some modification of the "Rec" model that's a
bit more loose will probably work.

> I, too, would be interested in having W3C provide a mechanism
> that lets vocabulary proposals grow into community-supported
> activities.  Even half-baked proposals :)
>
>

Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 16:49:05 UTC