- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:49:01 -0800
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
I admit that I always have trouble with the re-working of ontologies to new uses (like using dcterms:title for a person's name, which is legit but always rubs me the wrong way). In the SKOS case, I just can't see an identifier as a skos:concept. Also, if Bowker *did* provide a URI for ISBNs (and I think that's being discussed but is not yet realized) then I see no need for the identifier structure in schema. It is needed for those instances where there is no URI. (But, Jeff, maybe that's just an artifact of your example?) kc On 1/15/13 11:07 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote: > I looked at both. They seem to be equivalent with the SKOS being cleaner > and also based on only one new construct: SKOS. > Personally, I think the name attribute in the SKOS is a misleading > attribute label for at text key value. > If I had to choose between name and prefLabel I would prefer the latter > (though that is also misleading too but better than name). > How does this work for? > schema:identifier <urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039>; > In the SKOS part itself, is the do the inSchema and focus need to be > working URIs with something behind it? > <http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430> > a skos:Concept; > schema:name "9780553479430"; > schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ; > schema:focus <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>. > Shlomo > -----Original Message----- > From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 20:05 > To: Shlomo Sanders; Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire > Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane > Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals > There was some discussion of Richard's Identifier Proposal during > today's call, so I wanted to clarify my comments. > My observation was that the key patterns in Richard's "Identifier > Proposal" mirror patterns found in SKOS. I added a section to the > proposal so they can be compared side-by-side: > http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Proposal > http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Alternate_Proposed_based_on_SKOS > If Schema.org adopts the essence of SKOS (which they should if they're > serious about wanting to externalize lists), then Richard's Proposal can > be modeled as a specialization of that: > schema:Identifier rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept . > schema:inStandard rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:inScheme . > schema:identifies rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:focus . > I'm skeptical that Schema.org will care about explicitly modeling > "identifiers for identifiers" like this, but I won't object if the group > wants to try. > Jeff >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shlomo Sanders [mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:30 AM >> To: Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane >> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals >> >> "So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the >> description of a [standard] identifier." >> >> This seems convoluted and not KISS. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org] >> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 22:12 >> To: Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; 'Young,Jeff (OR)'; Vizine-Goetz,Diane >> Subject: Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals >> >> Hi Gordon, >> >> As Karen mentions, Schema.org purposely avoids the strict definition >> of domains and ranges and (as I would put it) 'hopes' to find the >> Expected Type as a property but it is also acceptable to find a string >> representation. >> >> The 'identifier' property I describe in the draft is stretching >> schema.org documentation style a little, by adding in an order of >> preference to the Expected Type. >> >> You are correct that a URI could be an identifier but the meaning I >> was hoping for in this case was that the identifier in question would >> be a [Standard] Identifier. Hence the examples of ISSN, ISNI, etc. >> >> However I omitted the word 'standard' so as not to restrict the use to >> only identifiers produced by standards bodies. >> >> So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the >> description of a [standard] identifier. >> >> I perhaps need to work a little on my descriptive text - all >> suggestions welcome! >> >> ~Richard. >> >> >> On 06/01/2013 18:01, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On 1/6/13 8:27 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote: >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> In the Identifier proposal, the value of the schema.identifier >> >> property includes URIs. >> >> >> >> 1. Assuming that schema.org Type is a synonym for RDF Class (or am >> >> I wrong?), what does this mean for the range of the identifier? Is >> >> it >> a >> >> literal, as in the "urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039" example, or a class, as in >> >> the <examplelib.org/identifier/12345> example, which is an >> individual >> >> member of the class? >> > >> > I believe that schema.org is purposely avoiding the strict >> > definition of domains and ranges. As it says in the documentation: >> > >> > "The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely >> pragmatic. >> > While the computational properties of systems with a single domain >> and >> > range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the >> > creation of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act >> > as the domain/range of some properties. " >> > >> >http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html >> > >> >> >> >> 2. Using the example, is it not true to say in ttl: >> >> >> >> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema.identifier >> >> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> .? >> >> >> >> If so, <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> is both a >> >> schema.Book and a schema.Identifier Š >> > >> > If the two (schema.Book and schema.Identifier) are not disjoint, >> > does it matter? >> > >> > kc >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Gordon >> >> >> >> *From:*Richard Wallis[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org] <mailto:[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]> >> >> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36 >> >> *To:*public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org> >> >> *Cc:* Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane >> >> *Subject:* Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I have pulled some of our thoughts and discussions together into a >> >> couple of draft vocabulary proposals. They can be found on the >> >> Wiki >> >> here: >> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>. >> >> >> >> These are most definitely Œdraft¹ proposals and are there as a >> >> foundation for us to work on. >> >> >> >> I am not precious about any of the Type or Property names I have >> >> used, or any of the descriptive text either. If you have better >> >> suggestions, dive in and share! >> >> >> >> I have included some example RDF I will add some RDFa and >> >> possibly other format examples later. I am holding off for a few >> >> days on this, as I am in discussion with the W3C hosting people >> >> about adding a syntax highlighting extension added to the Wiki >> >> which will make code examples far more readable. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Richard. >> >> >> >> -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:49:32 UTC