Prezados, Não é para já, mas vai ser relevante: algumas formas de participação exigem "se expor em nome da OKBr"... Precisa ser "alguém de confiança da OKBr", que ainda não é meu caso, pois confiança se conquista com calma... por isso digo "vai ser relevante"... Quando? Condições? Vale para todos os membros? (precisa pagar anualidade?) Coloco para o grupo.
Tenho dois problemas: 1. Não sou ninguém perante o W3C, seria "mais reputado" se usasse a grife OKBr através de uma caixa postal @OKBr-qualquer. Posteriormente, se sucesso, poderíamos candidatar a própria OKBr como entidade-membro do *Schema.org Community Group.* 2. Tenho participado nas horas vagas, e senti que dá trabalho (!) sobretudo para não "queimar o filme": meu inglês é ruim, preciso de apoiadores me monitorando/corrigindo de vez em quando... Exemplos: schemaorg/issues/405 <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/405>, schemaorg/issues/280 <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/280#issuecomment-75565671>, schemaorg/issues/401 <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/401>. Alias, quem quiser ajudar por favor contribua com WikidataIDs na planilha da issue 280 (!). *Abaixo a situação oficial*: aos poucos o SchemaOrg está reduzindo o grau de comprometimento com os *sponsors* <http://schema.org/docs/terms.html> (Google, Yahoo, Bing e cia) e assumindo maior compromisso (democrático!) com a comunidade e o W3C... Ontem, 31/3, foi oficialmente criada a *Schema.org Community Group* dentro do W3C (!)... Ainda é bastante e assumidamente informal <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/403>, como Abdo e Oda gostam ;-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Brickley <[email protected]> Date: 2015-04-01 6:56 GMT-03:00 Subject: Re: Proposed W3C Community Group for Schema.org To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <[email protected]> Cc: Ralph Swick <[email protected]> Update: the group has been approved and created: https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg/ Do please join up if you're interested in the finer detail of schema.org collaboration. We'll continue to to make heavy use of Github for issue tracking (i.e. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues ) and will also keep public-vocabs in-the-loop, but once the new extensions model is implemented (next week or so) I suggest using the Community Group as the default schema.org mailing list rather than public-vocabs. As a reminder the next release of schema.org is codenamed sdo-gozer, and the list of issues (63 open) currently tagged against it is at https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22sdo-gozer+release%22 We'll probably push a few of those open issues off into a subsequent release so if you've opinions on the urgency or best resolution for any of the issues listed, do jump in right away via Github. cheers, Dan On 31 March 2015 at 19:00, Dan Brickley <[email protected]> wrote: > A quick note about a proposed Community Group for Schema.org at W3C, > and its relationship with this list. > > The public-vocabs list is nearly 4(!) years old already. Since late > 2011 it has been framed as the mailing list for W3C's "Web Schemas" > task force of the Semantic Web Interest Group (charter at > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html). > > During these last years those of us in the schema.org project have > used the Web Schemas group and the [email protected] list as the > primary list for day-to-day schema.org discussions. We have > experimented with various collaboration mechanisms during that time, > most recently by moving to an opensource codebase and extensive use of > Github [1]. As we prepare to launch the recently announced extensions > mechanism [2] we have realised that there is a need for a more > dedicated Schema.org-specific forum that can be used to coordinate and > discuss schema.org extensions. > > Therefore I have just filed a proposal for a new W3C "Schema.org > Community Group", described as follows: > > "The Schema.org Community Group provides a forum for discussing all > changes, additions and extensions to schema.org. In addition to > providing a public setting for the day to day operation of the > project, it serves as the mechanism for reviewing extensions and as a > liaison point for all parties developing independent extensions to the > schema.org core." > > There is naturally some overlap with this broader public-vocabs group, > but the idea is that we will migrate all the more intense and detailed > schema.org collaboration discussions into the new Community Group > (while continuing to rely on Github to bring structure to our > discussions and sanity to our inboxes). > > I hope many of the regular contributors to public-vocabs discussions > will join and continue in the CG, and that public-vocabs will continue > in the role initially outlined, i.e. as a high level meeting place for > all efforts to bring structured data schemas into the Web. > > It looks like we only need one more person to vote for the group (we > have 4/5 already) before it will be brought into existence. Which > reminds me to emphasise that W3C Community Groups in general provide a > great mechanism for topical schema discussions, whether schema.org > oriented (like BibExtend, [4]) or otherwise. I'll keep this list > updated as things get set up... > > cheers, > > Dan > > > > [1] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Mar/0117.html > [3] https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2015/03/31/proposed-group-schema-org-community-group/#comment-55733 > https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#schemaorg > [4] https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
_______________________________________________ okfn-br mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br
