W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Schema.org for glossary, controled vocabulary, thesaurus... publication - which class to use ?

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:24:41 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590FBE4D45@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "jean delahousse KC" <jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com>
Cc: <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Here's how I would wire them up by incorporating SKOS/MADSRDF:

<http://example.org/book/1> a schema:Book;
	schema:name "Title of the book";
	schema:about <http://example.org/thing/1> .

<http://example.org/concept/1> a schema:Thing;
	schema:name "World War II";
	madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority <http://skosscheme1.org/concept/1>;
	madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority <http://skosscheme2.org/concept/1>.

<http://skosscheme1.org/concept/1> a skos:Concept;
	skos:prefLabel "WWII";
	skos:inScheme <http://skosscheme1.org/scheme> .

<http://skosscheme2.org/concept/1> a skos:Concept;
	skos:prefLabel "WW2";
	skos:inScheme <http://skosscheme2.org/scheme> .

<http://skosscheme1.org/scheme> a skos:ConceptScheme .
<http://skosscheme2.org/scheme> a skos:ConceptScheme .

The RDFa/Microdata serialization of this example would be more cryptic, but should be a mechanical transformation.

If you wanted to avoid SKOS terms in favor of Schema.org extensions, I would suggest schema:Thing/Concept, schema:Thing/ConceptScheme, and schema:name/prefLabel. I don't see any existing schema properties that could serve as the basis for madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority or skos:inScheme, though.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:27 AM
> To: jean delahousse KC
> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Schema.org for glossary, controled vocabulary,
> thesaurus... publication - which class to use ?
> On 21 March 2012 09:22, jean delahousse KC
> <jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > What class of object would you use to publish a glossary (controlled
> > vocabulary, thesaurus...) with an name and a definition for each
> > term/concept ? I think the concept identification (uri, labels, few
> > attributes...) should be under Intangible as the List, but today
> under
> > Intangible I don't really have a class to describe  concept (with
> > attributes for example).
> > The text definition of the concept could be classified as
> > creativework/article if it is a text giving a description of the
> concept
> > under a specific point of view.
> >
> > Thanks for your advices.
> We don't really have this yet. There may be a case to reflect
> something like a "SKOS lite" into schema.org's namespace. Or, since
> this isn't a particularly mass-market activity (there aren't so many
> people publishing these) maybe SKOS-in-RDFa or SKOS-in-Microdata would
> look simple enough. Good question! I'll ask around...
> cheers,
> Dan

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 13:26:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:22 UTC