- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:59:47 -0400
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Karen, You've raise issues that "we" (modeling experts and domain experts alike) need to deconstruct and reconcile to appeal to a broader audience. The W3C community (which I would characterize as a group of "modeling experts") was able to respond almost immediately (within days of the Schema.org announcement) with an RDF mapping: http://schema.rdfs.org/). The Schema.org community has acknowledged this alignment in a few ways: - http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html - http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl - Hiring Dan Brickley Schema.org may not be as obsessed with ontological/ideological prophylaxis as the Semantic Web (or library) community are, but that's presumably because they "know" (in a sense) that triple-based intuition-based vocabularies are more important (in the broad sense and in these early phases) than modeling-expertise/domain-expertise hygiene. I personally am inclined to believe that this "big bang" approach is in everyone's best interest. This includes emerging razor-sharp industrial-strength "domain models" of the type that could be characterized by the "long tail" diagram in this blog post: http://philarcher.org/diary/2012/danbri/?m=0 Disclaimer: This DOESN'T mean that I intend to shove this view down OCLC's (or the industry's) throat. (The idea that I have this kind of power/influence is so ludicrous I can't even believe I'm saying it. I'm merely here to help.) If the industry needs to believe that SKOS and/or MARCR (or Dublin Core or RDA or whatever) are "superior" to Schema.org then I will do whatever I can (within practical reason) to support it. Nevertheless, I can't promise to believe that it needs to be either/or. Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:55 PM > To: public-schemabibex@w3.org > Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October > > I'm unclear on the proposed use of a SKOS-like addition to schema.org. > My understanding of schema.org is that it is intended to make up for > the fact that most web pages do not have any semantic mark-up, just > HTML. > Any vocabularies in SKOS already do have semantic mark-up. Are you > anticipating that some sites would use schema.org *instead of* SKOS? > Also, are you thinking that schema.org users would use this to define > controlled vocabularies? > > kc > > On 10/16/12 12:33 PM, jean delahousse wrote: > > > > > > 2012/10/16 jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com > > <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com>> > > > > Hi All, > > > > Any subject described in the classes of Schema.org (person, > > organization, creative work, product, intangible...) can be > > referenced in a controlled vocabulary with the specific formalism > of > > a controlled vocabulary and the specific relationships it allows > > (broader, narrower, related and alignment relationships). The aim > of > > the controlled vocabulary description of the concept, is not to > > descripe the subject itself, but to describe it as a "concept" in > a > > controlled vocabulary, describing a given set of subjects, which > > someone wants to use to classify or describe something else. > > > > Administration and publication of a controlled vocabulary implies > > some best practices and rules about concept definition, labels, > life > > of the concept.. which are the same for all class of subjects. > > > > So in my mind the concept description can double a description of > > the subject as a person, a product, an event, in the same > > publication. This would probably means to be able to describe a > link > > between the skos:concept page and the page about this subject, > for > > example between the concept of "Chicago" in the controlled > > vocabulary, and a page describing Chicago as a place in the same > web > > site. > > > > So the objective here is not to describe subject which are not > > actually described by Shema.org but to give a very oriented > > "taxonomist" view on any possible subject. > > As a matter of fact, my first tought was to add a class "concept" > at > > the upper level under Thing. This class would not have be > exclusive > > from belonging to any other class. > > > > Jean > > > > > > 2012/10/16 jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com > > <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com>> > > > > Richard, > > > > I did publish a brief description a link on the uploaded copy > of > > the document. > > > > Jean > > > > > > 2012/10/16 Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org > > <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>> > > > > Jean, > > > > Would you have any objection to your proposal being > > published on the Group Wiki? > > > > If it is OK by you, you could append a brief description > to > > the Areas for Discussion page > > > <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Areas_for_Discussion> > > and link to an uploaded copy of the document. > > > > ~Richard. > > > > > > > > > > On 16/10/2012 14:10, "Tami Ezra" > > <Tami.Ezra@exlibrisgroup.com > > <http://Tami.Ezra@exlibrisgroup.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > My name is Tami Ezra and I am a senior business > analyst > > at Ex Libris. > > > > I am interested in the proposal discussed below - > would > > it be possible to get a copy? > > > > Many thanks > > > > Tami > > > > > > > > *From:* Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:24 AM > > *To:* jean delahousse KC; public-schemabibex@w3.org > > <http://public-schemabibex@w3.org> > > *Subject:* RE: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C > > Group - 17th October > > > > 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 > > <http://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 > > <http://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 > > <http://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------- > > delahousse.jean@gmail.com <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com> > - > > +33 6 01 22 48 55 <tel:%2B33%206%2001%2022%2048%2055> - > skype: > > jean.delahousse -blog >contenus >données >sémantique > > <http://jean-delahousse.net> - twitter.com/jdelahousse > > <http://twitter.com/jdelahousse> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------- > > delahousse.jean@gmail.com <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com> - > +33 6 > > 01 22 48 55 <tel:%2B33%206%2001%2022%2048%2055> - skype: > > jean.delahousse -blog >contenus >données >sémantique > > <http://jean-delahousse.net> - twitter.com/jdelahousse > > <http://twitter.com/jdelahousse> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------- > > delahousse.jean@gmail.com <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com> - +33 6 > 01 > > 22 48 55 - skype: jean.delahousse -blog >contenus >données > >sémantique > > <http://jean-delahousse.net> - twitter.com/jdelahousse > > <http://twitter.com/jdelahousse> > > > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 02:04:46 UTC