Re: Non-schema.org ontologies

This is a fantastic question by Tim. The whole point to the domain 
system is to have distributed domains. Despite the many efforts to try 
and categorize the entire world, schema.org is not the best place for 
all standards in the world.

I have followed the food/cooking/recipe standard development and 
starting to look at the legal. This effort to not allow extensible 
standards that look to others is a mistake. I had a discussion about 
kosher food (and I have sometimes lived in and visited kosher homes and 
kitchens). Right now in the US, this is best dealt with by using 
trademarks (which usually have organizations with domains). It seemed 
silly to me to have people in the schema.org community explain to me 
that they were just interested in having something generic. This to me 
is a major mistake in understanding the whole point to ontologies and 
usable machine readable standards. But it is a good way to keep legal 
and subject matter folks view schema.org usable for anything besides a 
folksonomy (and sometimes a poor one at that).

By the way, not only are there competing authorities on kosher food and 
preparation, there are sub-designations that make using a generic tag 
nonsensical. Note that a recipe with all "kosher" ingredients would be 
rendered not kosher without noting things that relate to type, whether 
prepared in a kosher kitchen, how they are prepared, what can be mixed, 
etc, etc. I use this as an example of an effort in schema.org that 
should never, ever, be dealt with by schema.org.

Please answer Tim's question.

Thanks,

Daniel Bennett
daniel@citizencontact.com
@citizencontact


On 8/31/2016 11:14 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> If an ontological functions wasn't described by schema.org 
> <http://schema.org> ie: amenities: toilets or as may be similarly 
> described, what other ontologies are scraped by various search engines 
> / A.I. Related services??
>
> Tim.h.