[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13067635#comment-13067635
]
Andreas Kuckartz commented on STANBOL-3:
----------------------------------------
Maybe it is relevant here that the future of both microdata and RDFa is open:
"Arising from its Last Call review of the HTML5 suite of specifications, the
TAG wishes to raise issues on both the HTML microdata [1] and HTML+RDFa 1.1
[2] Working Drafts.
Specifically, our opinion is that the W3C should not publish two
specifications that meet such similar requirements in incompatible ways. We
think doing so would cause confusion for users and implementers, promote
lock-in, and fragment the web. We request that the W3C Director set up a
task force to find agreement on a way forward."
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13100
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13101
So far the outcome does not seem to be predictable. There is not even agreement
between all participants that overlapping requirements exist...
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the
> code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a
> vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one
> of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
