RE: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October

I assume these advanced features are beyond what Schema.org will swallow.

I love how much of SKOS is being incorporated into this proposal. I'm mainly wary of this assertion (explicit or implied):

schema:Concept owl:equivalentClass skos:Concept .

If the advanced SKOS features can be snuck into Schema.org, great. If they can't, then we need an (implied) assertion like this to preserve the integrity of SKOS:

skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:01 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane; Wallis,Richard
> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October
> 
> Does this practically mean that you're suggesting that the
> schema:Concept extension should:
> -include foaf:focus as a possible attribute -try to enforce more
> constraints on labeling properties?
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> > The difference boils down to casual vs. industrial use cases. As
> minimal as skos:Concept is, it still has these industrial-strength
> features:
> >
> > 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
> > 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
> > 	- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:52 PM
> >> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane; Wallis,Richard
> >> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> >> October
> >>
> >> Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> I have no time to react to the FRBR stuff, unfortunately. But I'm
> >> quite puzzled by this:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thus my argument that schema:Concept is more equivalent to FRBR
> >> Concept than it is to skos:Concept.
> >>
> >>
> >> How come that a class that is designed to represent skos:Concepts
> >> would be closer to another class than it is to skos:Concept???
> >> Especially when skos:Concept itself is so minimally defined?
> >>
> >> I'm ready to accept that the current design for schema:Concept has
> >> missed something. But I'd need to understand which precise part has
> >> missed its aim ...
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Antoine
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm not completely sure that Gordon's view of FRBR Concept aligns
> >> with
> >>> mine. I prefer the FRBR Final Report's definition of Concept:
> >>> http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr1.htm#3.2
> >>>
> >>> 	3.2.7 Concept
> >>>
> >>> 	The seventh entity defined in the model is concept: an abstract
> >> notion or idea.
> >>>
> >>> I'm less comfortable with the more liberal definition Gordon gives
> >> (from FRBRer?) "a grab-bag, best defined as 'a subject which is not
> a
> >> Work, Expression, ...'". It's getting harder and harder to believe
> >> there are only 10-12 basic types of things in the universe by
> >> treating "Concept" as equivalent to "Miscellaneous".
> >>>
> >>> A couple of other asides:
> >>> 	- I would argue that FRBR Concepts aren't dependent on authority
> >> control. People can recognize concepts without necessarily being
> able
> >> to agree (or even attach) authoritative labels to them.
> >>> 	- We should avoid the assumption that FRBR Group 2/3 entities
> >> only become such when they are known to be a "subject" of a FRBR
> Work
> >> or bound to other FRBR entity by some other form of literary warrant
> >> (creator/publisher/etc). Gordon's point about FRSAD and OWL is
> useful
> >> and deserves further consideration. Which of the following should we
> >> believe?:
> >>> 		- frsad:Thema owl:equivalentClass owl:Thing . (Correcting
> >> owl:sameAs to owl:equivalentClass)
> >>> 		- frsad:Thema rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing . (only things that
> >> are the
> >>> "subject" of a FRBR Work are frsad:Themas)
> >>>
> >>> That's how I think about FRBR Concept. I'm not claiming that this
> >> hair-splitting is "correct". I'm just saying that my brain doesn't
> >> fall out as often when I think this way.
> >>>
> >>> Moving on to SKOS:
> >>>
> >>> One aside first: Since FRSAD go mentioned earlier, it may also be
> >>> worth pointing out the symmetries between
> >>> skos-xl:Label/skos-xl:prefLabel and
> frsad:Nomen/frsad:hasAppellation
> >>>
> >>> Now back to SKOS Concepts. Assuming that my interpretation of FRBR
> >> Concept makes sense, I would argue this:
> >>> 	- skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf x-frbr:Concept .
> >>>
> >>> There are a few reasons for this:
> >>> 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
> >>> 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
> >>> 	- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
> >>>
> >>> I would argue that these principles/patterns are essential for
> >>> proper
> >> authority control. OTOH, I suspect that these principles are beyond
> >> the limits of what Schema.org extension would accept. Thus my
> >> argument that schema:Concept is more equivalent to FRBR Concept than
> >> it is to skos:Concept.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not saying schema:Concept (based on the proposal) couldn't be
> >> used to define an authority control scheme, only that it will be
> >> idiomatic and have to be manipulated to work in aggregated
> >> environments.
> >>>
> >>> Clear as mud yet? :-)
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:58 AM
> >>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> >>>> October
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jeff (and thanks to Gordon for the explanation!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting: we meant schema:Concept to be as close as
> skos:Concept.
> >>>> Why would it feel closer to frbr:Concept?
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that the sub-classing of schema:Concept as sub-class of
> >>>> schema:Intangible is really open for discussion. If we realize
> that
> >>>> this sub-classing stands in the path of some FRSAD or SKOS uses,
> >> then
> >>>> let's get rid of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Antoine
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jean,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I like where this is heading. In the experimental WorldCat.org
> >>>>> Linked
> >>>> Data so far (online RDFa and bulk N-Triples) I used skos:Concept
> >>>> for these situations. In my dev environment, though, I started the
> >> switch
> >>>> to schema:Intangible but wasn't entirely happy with it. This
> >> proposal
> >>>> is much more satisfying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One issue comes to mind for discussion, though. This proposed
> >>>> schema:Concept feels more equivalent to FRBR Concept than it does
> >>>> to skos:Concept. The difference is subtle but real, IMO, and has
> to
> >>>> do with foaf:focus (with a range of "Thing" and inverse of
> >>>> madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority) being a meaningful property for
> >>>> the latter (skos:Concept) but not the former (FRBR Concept). VIAF
> >>>> (which doesn't currently attempt to identify FRBR Concepts) is
> >>>> probably the best illustration of the issues involved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I realize that schema:Concept is destined to be a compromise, but
> >> it
> >>>> would be nice (albeit perhaps not necessary) if this group had a
> >>>> clear understanding and articulation of those compromises to
> >> minimize
> >>>> confusion in industrial-strength use cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *From:*delahousse.jean@gmail.com
> >>>>> [mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com]
> >>>> *On Behalf Of *jean delahousse KC
> >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 10:13 AM
> >>>>> *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> >>>> October
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First I want to thank you for accepting my application to
> >>>>> participate
> >>>> to your work group.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had been working this summer on an extension of Schema.org for
> >>>> controlled vocabularies based on Skos ontology. After BnF
> published
> >>>> Rameau in the LOD but also as web pages, one for each concept, I
> >>>> thought it will be useful to have an extension of Schema.org to
> >>>> make concepts defined in controlled vocabularies more visible by
> >>>> search engines.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Concepts are good candidates for TopicPages, and work as hub to
> >>>> access well annotated contents or others Topic Pages. They are a
> >>>> valuable asset for content / knowledge access from a search
> engine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also it happens to find "glossary", "terminology" or "lexicon" in
> >>>>> a
> >>>> web site. This extension of Schema.org will enable to describe
> >>>> those types of publication.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I took the initiative of this work but immediately ask for
> support
> >>>> and review work to Antoine Isaac and Romain Weinz. They have been
> >>>> very encouraging and already proposed corrections included in this
> >> version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You'll find attached the proposal for the Skos Schema.org
> >> extension,
> >>>> we made it as simple and light as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I propose, if the group agrees, to have a first discussion on
> this
> >>>> proposal inside our group before to publish it for a larger
> >> audience..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Talk to you on Thursday.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jean Delahousse
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2012/10/10 Richard Wallis<richard.wallis@oclc.org
> >>>> <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is about time we followed up on the excellent first meeting we
> >>>> had.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have scheduled conference call time for 11:00am EDT next
> >> Wednesday
> >>>> 17th October for us to start to talk through some of the issues
> and
> >>>> suggestions we discussed last time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You will find call in details and a provisional agenda on the
> >>>>> group
> >>>> wiki here:
> >> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20121017
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you have suggestions for the agenda, either edit the wiki or
> >> drop
> >>>> me a line.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Richard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Richard Wallis
> >>>>> Technology Evangelist
> >>>>> OCLC
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *KnowledgeConsult, Directeur Associé*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> blog>contenus>données>sémantique<http://jean-delahousse.net>   -
> >>>> twitter.com/jdelahousse<http://twitter.com/jdelahousse>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com
> >>>> <mailto:jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com>   +33 (0)6-01-22-48-
> 55
> >>>> skype: jean.delahousse
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 17:27:27 UTC