Re: Proposal for new type : Vocabulary

All:

I think Bernard is on the right track--generalization under 'Vocabulary'
seems to meet a variety of use cases, and comes from someone who is
actually providing useful access to this useful (if difficult) category of
resources.

Diane


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Bernard Vatant
<bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>wrote:

> Hi Dan
>
> Well, owl:Ontology is OK for vocabularies which are sort of ontologies and
> defined in the restricted scope of the Semantic Web techies :)
> I was thinking about a broader scope, e.g., simple glossaries, which are
> certainly many more on the Web than OWL ontologies or SKOS concept schemes.
>
> Suppose I want to put schema.org in pages such as :
>
> http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/
> http://www.weather.com/glossary/a.html
> http://biz.yahoo.com/f/g/
> http://www.unicode.org/glossary/
>
> seems to me there are many many such pages out there (to answer Martin's
> objection about limited scope)
>
> Bernard
>
>
> 2013/12/6 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
>
>> On 3 December 2013 11:19, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Dear all
>> >
>> > We're considering adding schema.org markup at lov.okfn.org, and in
>> > particular in vocabulary description pages, such as
>> > http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_schema.html.
>> >
>> > We can now put each vocabulary in the broad CreativeWork type, but what
>> > about a more specific "Vocabulary" type, which could be used by any
>> kind of
>> > reference vocabulary : glossaries, classifications, ontologies, concept
>> > schemes, subject headings, authorities ...
>> >
>> > An extra would be to have a "definedBy" property to link instances of
>> the
>> > oncoming Topic class to an instance of Vocabulary.
>> >
>> > How does that sound?
>>
>> Since this is for a rather limited / professional / expert audience
>> (like SKOS), how about just using owl:Ontology ?
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Ontology-def
>>
>> I believe all the other features of OWL are optional (i.e. don't feel
>> obliged, and it would be a reasonable use of the term.
>>
>> Similarly http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby was defined
>> for relating a term to ... where it came from.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Bernard Vatant*
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> http://google.com/+BernardVatant
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>