Schemas/structured data session at W3C TPAC

Yes, we arranged for a TPAC room on the friday - shared between this
Community Group and others devoted to schema collaboration (including
the Semantic Web Interest Group, which is on track to get converted
into a Community Group too).

Agenda skeleton: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Semantic_Web_Structured_Data_Schemas

I've linked the thread below, but feel free to dive into the Wiki page
to add detailed session/topic suggestions.

Dan


On 6 September 2016 at 07:13, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Am 05.09.2016 um 19:54 schrieb Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:
>
>
>
> On 5 September 2016 at 18:01, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> I am not surprised GSDT won't accept your snippet because schema:sameAs is
>> not defined on all schema:Thing.
>>
>> I don't think we have made much progress on extending (or not) the range
>> of schema:sameAs. To be honest, there's been very little traction there and
>> some people just didn't like the idea and were advocating for the use of
>> owl:sameAs instead.
>
>
> Yes,  I think we got stuck in those discussions. It might be worth starting
> over but backing up and beginning with goals rather than a candidate
> (sameAs) solution.
>
>
> My ultimate goal would be to represent the below XML structure in Schema.org
> , to allow on the Web term based searched e.g. within technical
> documentation and across languages
>
> <termEntry id="t1">
> <descrip type="subjectField">Publishing</descrip>
> <langSet xml:lang="ja" id="t1-ja">
> <tig>
> <term>ページ</term>
> </tig>
> </langSet>
> <langSet xml:lang="en" id="t1-en">
> <tig>
> <term>page</term>
> </tig>
> </langSet>
> </termEntry>
>
>
> Conceptually that means:
> 1) Give each term a unique ID and the type „Term“
> 2) Give each term a subject field
> 3) Give each linguistic representation in a given language a unique ID
> 4) Provide additional information like the canonical linguistic surface form
>
> The solution discussion in this thread achieves 3) and allows to interrelate
> several linguistic representations. That would already be a great step
> forward?
>
> I looked at the TPAC schedule but could not find a Schema.org related slot -
> is there a dedicated meeting planned?
>
> best,
>
> Felix
>
>
> As far as the Google tool is concerned,
> https://gist.github.com/danbri/868cb89aeb797a0ff43955b9187f8b6b is as close
> as I could get it to passing the checker, but the failures aren't surprising
> given the current structures at schema.org.
>
>> Not sure what would be the next step though. I would at least prefer
>> having a note somewhere saying explicitly that schema:sameAs shouldn't be
>> used for such scenarios (maybe in [1]?).
>
>
> What wording would you suggest? My preference would be for the definition of
> sameAs to be sufficiently clear but we can always link to more details.
>
> Dan
>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Alexandre
>>
>> [1] https://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html#mainEntityBackground
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 5, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Alexandre and all,
>> >
>> > coming back to this old thread … I am working on an implementation
>> > generating schema.org markup from term data bases - still with the goal to
>> > represent the „translated_as“ relation between terms. The google validation
>> > tool gives me for the below input
>> >
>> > {
>> >   "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>> >   "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-1",
>> >   "type" : "schema:Thing",
>> >  "schema:inLanguage": "ja",
>> >  "schema:name": "ページ",
>> >  "schema:sameAs": {
>> >    "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-2",
>> >    "type" : "schema:Thing",
>> >    "schema:inLanguage": "en",
>> >    "schema:name": "page"
>> >  } }
>> >
>> > The attached error messages. How could I adapt the example? Or is this
>> > an issue with the tool?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Felix
>> >
>> > <validation-errors.pdf>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Am 17.03.2016 um 15:35 schrieb Alexandre Bertails <bertails@apple.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Felix,
>> >>
>> >> We are currently trying to solve a very similar problem. My plan is to
>> >> use schema:sameAs for that. Applied to your example:
>> >>
>> >> {
>> >>  "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-1",
>> >>  "@type": "schema:Term",
>> >>  "schema:inLanguage": "en",
>> >>  "schema:name": "screwdriver",
>> >>  "schema:sameAs": {
>> >>    "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-2",
>> >>    "schema:inLanguage": "de",
>> >>    "schema:name": "schraubendreher"
>> >>  }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> Conceptually, the 2 entities really denote the same thing. Granted, our
>> >> usage of schema:sameAs is not exactly what's described in
>> >> https://schema.org/sameAs but there are reasons why we prefer to stay within
>> >> the schema.org realm. And owl:sameAs would bring a lot of baggage with it
>> >> which we are not interested in.
>> >>
>> >> Also, I think schema:translation would be too specific. Personally, I
>> >> would be happy if the definition of schema:sameAs was less about web pages.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Alexandre
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 6:22 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Am 17.03.2016 um 13:56 schrieb Thomas Francart
>> >>>> <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't think the original question was about translating the terms
>> >>>> of schema.org itself (classes and properties); it was about the possibility
>> >>>> to describe terms/words, similar to what SKOS-XL proposes.
>> >>>> For me the original proposition makes sense, it would allow to state
>> >>>> things like "this term/word A is used for a large public", "that other
>> >>>> word/term B is used by the scientific community" "the words/terms A and B
>> >>>> are both used to refer to concept C", "word/term A is an acronym of
>> >>>> word/term B", "word/term D is slang, while word/term E is formal language",
>> >>>> etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, that was the original question. A further comment below.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thomas
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-03-17 13:38 GMT+01:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:
>> >>>> Yes, I tend to agree with Chaals & Richard here: for translated
>> >>>> labels
>> >>>> of structured data vocabulary terms (schema.org's and others), we
>> >>>> should look towards the underlying W3C standards: RDF/S and perhaps
>> >>>> sometimes SKOS, SKOS-XL. It is usual to stick to a single URL for
>> >>>> types and properties rather than proliferate them by having different
>> >>>> URLs for each language.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In my use case (see below) I need to differentiate uniquely (= via
>> >>> URIS) between
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) terms in language X,Y,Z
>> >>> 2) common = language agnostic concepts that they denote
>> >>> 3) domains (= topics) that they belong too
>> >>>
>> >>> Richard wrote :
>> >>>
>> >>> [
>> >>> As to proposing a general purpose term definition / relationship
>> >>> structure such as you describe, I can see the need for such a capability but
>> >>> wonder if in most cases SKOS-like existing solutions would suffice for
>> >>> detailed description.  Whereas I would require some convincing as to the
>> >>> potential take up in a broad general purpose vocabulary such as Schema.org.
>> >>> ]
>> >>>
>> >>> The use case is a Japanese buyer of items who knows how something is
>> >>> expressed in his language. He wants to be able to make a search for
>> >>> スクリュードライバー
>> >>> and say: give me pages about screwdrivers that express the concept of
>> >>> a screwdriver in my domain and denotes the concept I want to buy (= take up
>> >>> the information provided by 1,2,3 above). The buyer does not want to buy
>> >>> screwdrivers in general, and he does not want to buy everything with the
>> >>> label screwdriver in english; but he wants to be a specific screwdriver in a
>> >>> given domain, e.g. automative manufacturing. The buyer also wants to take
>> >>> variants of how terms are expressed into account, e.g. differences in
>> >>> spelling, abbreviations etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> Such searches are quite common in search of multilingual terminology
>> >>> data bases. In these data bases terms are uniquely identified first class
>> >>> citizens. More and more companies put such data bases on the web but don’t
>> >>> have a way yet to do that with structured HTML markup. So search for
>> >>> multilingual terminology, taking 1,2,3 into account, is not yet possible on
>> >>> the Web.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Felix
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here is an example btw of RDFa+RDFS definitions that do this, from
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/sdo-deimos/data/l10n/zh-cn/schema_org_zhcn.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <div typeof="rdfs:Class" resource="http://schema.org/Audience">
>> >>>> <span class="h" property="rdfs:label">Audience</span>
>> >>>> <span class="h" property="rdfs:label" xml:lang="zh-cn">听众</span>
>> >>>> <span property="rdfs:comment">Intended audience for an item, i.e. the
>> >>>> group for whom the item was created.</span>
>> >>>> <span property="rdfs:comment" xml:lang="zh-cn">听众，观众, 读者</span>
>> >>>> <span>Subclass of: <a property="rdfs:subClassOf"
>> >>>> href="http://schema.org/Intangible">Intangible</a></span>
>> >>>> </div>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does this approach do what you have in mind, Felix?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 17 March 2016 at 10:56, Richard Wallis
>> >>>> <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Not sure I understand your definition of a term, but the ability to
>> >>>>> handle
>> >>>>> names, or any other text based properties, of things in multiple
>> >>>>> languages
>> >>>>> is already possible:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> {
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  "@context": “http://schema.org/”,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-1",
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  "@type": "schema:Thing",
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  "schema:name": [
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    {
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>      "@language": "en",
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>      "@value": "screwdriver"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    },
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    {
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>      "@language": "de",
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>      "@value": "schraubendreher"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    }
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  ]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> }
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> or in RDFa:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <div typeof="schema:Thing"
>> >>>>> about="http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-1">
>> >>>>>    <div property="schema:name" xml:lang="en"
>> >>>>> content="screwdriver"></div>
>> >>>>>    <div property="schema:name" xml:lang="de"
>> >>>>> content="schraubendreher"></div>
>> >>>>>  </div>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ~Richard
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Richard Wallis
>> >>>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>> >>>>> http://dataliberate.com
>> >>>>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>> >>>>> Twitter: @rjw
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 17 March 2016 at 09:04, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It seems that schema.org as of writing would not allow to express
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> relation for terms „A is a translation from B“ or „A is an
>> >>>>>> abbreviation from
>> >>>>>> B“. It is already possible to express that A is translation of B,
>> >>>>>> see
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> http://bib.schema.org/translationOfWork
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> but this is specific to works, not translated terms. Would the
>> >>>>>> below make
>> >>>>>> sense? It is adapted from
>> >>>>>> https://schema.org/translator
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> note: schema:Term and schema:translation do not exist in
>> >>>>>> schema.org, I
>> >>>>>> made them up for the example.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> {
>> >>>>>>  "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-1",
>> >>>>>>  "@type": "schema:Term",
>> >>>>>>  "schema:inLanguage": "en",
>> >>>>>>  "schema:name": "screwdriver",
>> >>>>>>  "schema:translation": {
>> >>>>>>    "@id": "http://example.com/my-term-data-base-entry-2",
>> >>>>>>    "schema:inLanguage": "de",
>> >>>>>>    "schema:name": "schraubendreher"
>> >>>>>>  }
>> >>>>>> }
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> - Felix
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thomas Francart - SPARNA
>> >>>> Web de données | Architecture de l'information | Accès aux
>> >>>> connaissances
>> >>>> blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin :
>> >>>> fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
>> >>>> tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:42:26 UTC