It's "langushing" and they should do it for us? It's flourishing and they're doing it for us and they have lots of open issues and I want more for free without any work.

Wow! Nobody else does anything to collaboratively, inclusively develop schema and the problem is that search engines aren't just doing it for us?

1) Search engines do not owe us anything. They are not obligated to dominate us or the schema that we may voluntarily decide to include on our pages.

We've paid them nothing. They have no contract for service or agreement with us which compels them to please us or contribute greater resources to an open standard that hundreds of people are contributing to.

2) You people don't know anything about linked data and structured data.

Here's a list of schema: https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/ .

Here's the Linked Open Data Cloud: https://lod-cloud.net/

Does your or this publisher's domain include any linked data?

Does this article include any linked data?

Do data quality issues pervade promising, comparatively-expensive, redundant approaches to natural-language comprehension, reasoning, and summarization?

Here, in contributing this example PR adding RDFa to the codeforantarctica web page, I probably made a mistake. https://github.com/CodeForAntarctica/codeforantarctica.githu... . Can you spot the mistake?

There should have been review.

https://schema.org/ClaimReview, W3C Verifiable Claims / Credentials, ld-signatures, and lds-merkleproof2017.

Which brings us to reification, truth values, property graphs, and the new RDF* and SPARQL* and JSON-LD* (which don't yet have repos with ongoing issues to tend to).

3) Get to work. This article does nothing to teach people how to contribute to slow, collaborative schema standards work.

Here's the link to the GitHub Issues so that you can contribute to schema.org: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg

...

"Standards should be better and they should pay for it"

Who are the major contributors to the (W3C) open standard in question?

Is telling them to put up more money or step down going to result in getting what we want? Why or why not?

Who would merge PRs and close issues?

Have you misunderstood the scope of the project? What do the editors of the schema feel in regards to more specific domain vocabularies?
Is it feasible or even advisable to attempt to out-schema domain experts who know how to develop and revise an ontology or even just a vocabulary with Protegé?

To give you a sense of how much work goes into creating a few classes and properties defined with RDFS in RDFa in HTML: here's the https://schema.org/Course , https://schema.org/CourseInstance , and https://schema.org/EducationEvent issue: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/195

Can you find the link to the Use Cases wiki (which was the real work)? What strategy did you use to find it?

...

"Well, Google just does what's good for Google."

Are you arguing that Google.org should make charitable contributions to this project?
Is that an advisable or effective way to influence a W3C open standard (where conflicts of interest by people just donating time are disclosed)?

Anyone can use something like extruct or OSDS to extract RDFa, Microdata, and/or JSON-LD from a page.

Everyone can include structured data and linked data in their pages.

There are surveys quantifying how many people have included which types in their pages. Some of that data is included on schema.org types pages.

...

Some written interview questions:

> Which issues have you contributed to? Which issues have you seen all the way to closed? Have you contributed a pull request to the project? Have you published linked data? What is the URL to the docs which explain how to contribute resources? How would you improve them?

https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1291903926007209984

...

After all that's happened here, I think Dan (who built FOAF, which all profitable companies could use instead of https://schema.org/Person ) deserves a week off to add more linked data to the internet now please.