W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Should we adopt SKOS?

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:29:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVHTX4OmfSBn4Ah=CDWG6bgmaV0YG=k-AKGmKW0Uz2xjxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Hello all

Already too many cooks around this pot, but here goes ...

Whatever the choice made by schema.org on this, it will be controversial
and likely to be misinterpreted, because two many communities have forged
subtle terminology variants for this elusive ... err ...
category/type/class.
If the aim is to "adopt" SKOS, as Richard puts it, the default option
should be to adopt also SKOS terminology : Concept, ConceptScheme etc. At
least we have there a standard terminology and reference vocabulary, widely
adopted, and of which semantics have been discussed at length by a bunch of
experts in those things.

Bernard


2013/1/9 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

>
> On 9 Jan 2013 20:26, "Jason Douglas" <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > I rescind my earlier comment in the sense that we do want everything to
> have a name, description, url, etc. so it makes practical sense to have
> everything inherit from Thing to get those properties.
>
> Yes, let's keep Thing as the class of *all* things.
>
> I am a little wary of Category as a name since it is more likely to be
> mixed with Type; eg. Thad's description below seems also to describe our
> existing typing notion.
>
> A category/topic in this SKOSlike sense is an identified entity typically
> used to characterise the subject / topical coverage of a CreativeWork, but
> could also be used to indicate skills and abilities eg in CV/resume,
> JobPosting; or descriptions of learning resources. Recipies, Software Apps,
> Geospatial entitied and TV shows (amongst countless others) often get coded
> using domain specific, simple hierarchical lists.
>
> We want to encourage the use of such coding in schema.org markup, and it
> would probably be good to show some examples of these 'externally
> enumerated' topic/category schemes being published as Rdfa Lite so they can
> be presented using both skos and schema.org vocab.
>
> Many SKOS schemes encode Thesauri; it is hard to see these items as
> categories. Even as topics is a stretch. Also 'topic' has specific meaning
> in Freebase, perhaps halfway between Skos 'Concept' and Rdf/rdfs 'Class'?
>
> Sometimes the hardest thing with schemas is finding the right word....
>
> Dan
>
> >
> > -jason
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I differ and think that there is a need for these 3 at the highest
> level:
> >>
> >> Category - A grouping of Things, or Topics.
> >> Thing - we have it already, and which is sometimes placed in Categories.
> >> Topic - where Concept, Ideas, etc. hold and are rarely placed in
> Categories.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Category should be a subClassOf Thing.
> >>>
> >>> guha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Jason Douglas <
> jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +Cc: Jamie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 9 January 2013 16:29, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>> > Coming from the bibliographic world, specifically chairing  the
> Schema Bib
> >>>>> > Extend Group[1] (who are building a consensus around a group of
> proposals
> >>>>> > for Schema.org extensions for bibliographic resources, before
> submitting
> >>>>> > them to this group), I am identifying situations where being able
> to model
> >>>>> > things as SKOS[2] Concepts held in ConceptSchemes would make a
> great deal of
> >>>>> > sense.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Working with colleagues we were finding ourselves almost
> reinventing the
> >>>>> > SKOS model in [proposed] Schema.org vocabulary.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > The introduction of External Enumerations[2] provided the ability
> to link to
> >>>>> > lists of things controlled by external authorities.  An approach
> used widely
> >>>>> > in the bibliographic and other domains – Library of Congress
> Subject
> >>>>> > Headings[4] for example.  Many of these authorities are modelled
> using SKOS
> >>>>> > (Concepts within ConceptSchemes) which introduces a consistent
> structured
> >>>>> > way to describe relationships (broader/narrower), language specific
> >>>>> > preferred labels, etc.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Sub-typing Intangible for Concept and ConceptScheme, it would be
> >>>>> > comparatively easy to introduce SKOS into Schema.  The benefits I
> believe
> >>>>> > being to add even more value to External Enumeration; providing a
> flexible
> >>>>> > simple-ish yet standard pattern for marking up lists of concepts
> and their
> >>>>> > interrelationships; provide a very easy way for already published
> >>>>> > authoritative lists of concepts to adopt Schema.org and provide
> valuable
> >>>>> > resources for all to connect with.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > For instance VIAF[4] the Virtual International Authority File, a
> well used
> >>>>> > source of URIs and authoritative names for people and organisations
> >>>>> > (compiled and managed by the bibliographic community but used
> widely) is
> >>>>> > already in SKOS.  SKOS is also used in many other domains.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I could see this adding value without significant impact on the
> rest of
> >>>>> > Schema.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > What do others think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've been thinking in this direction too (and had brief discussion
> >>>>> with Jamie, cc:'d, w.r.t. Freebase's approach).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SKOS has done well and a great many controlled vocabularies in the
> >>>>> thesauri, subject classification and code list tradition are
> expressed
> >>>>> using it. SKOS handles various cases where 'class/object/property'
> >>>>> models don't capture things well. I'd like to have a way of
> reflecting
> >>>>> SKOS-oriented data into schema.org descriptions without going
> >>>>> 'multi-namespace'. There are also already various corners of
> >>>>> schema.org where different loose notions of 'category' are slipping
> >>>>> in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My current preference would be to call a new type "Topic" or perhaps
> >>>>> "Category" rather than the more esoteric / vague "Concept", even
> while
> >>>>> borrowing most structure and terminology from SKOS.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to a top-level, independent peer to Thing for this.  While
> Category might not be the most precise term for these, it has the advantage
> of being very clearly distinct from Thing -- and I worry that Topic and
> Concept aren't.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have a strawman list of what you'd hope to include, from a
> >>>>> bibliographic perspective?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > ~Richard
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > --
> >>>>> > Richard Wallis
> >>>>> > Technology Evangelist
> >>>>> > OCLC
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
> >>>>> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
> >>>>> > [3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations
> >>>>> > [4] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Thad
> >> http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
> >
> >
>



-- 
*Bernard Vatant
*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>

--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**          **                   *
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
www.mondeca.com
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:30:38 GMT