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

Re: Should we adopt SKOS? - point of clarification

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:53:19 -0800
Message-ID: <50EF1C2F.5000702@kcoyle.net>
To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
Thanks, Jon, although I still think this is a new development since 
previously value lists were (AFAIK) exclusively external to schema.org 
(which seems appropriate to me).

But I also should have added a third option, which is that some SKOS 
capabilities may be intended for the description of schema.org 
properties, just not just values. This is how I'm reading some of the 
interest in skos:prefLabel/altLabel. Maybe it's simply time for a few 
examples?

kc

On 1/10/13 8:57 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Karen,
>
> I would hope that it's "the intention to add taxonomies/lists to
> schema.org <http://schema.org> that will be used as values". Marking up
> "taxonomy and concept lists that are presented as Web pages" should be
> out of scope for this group.
>
> Schema.org does have a mechanism for "defined value lists":
> http://blog.schema.org/2012/05/schemaorg-markup-for-external-lists.html
> And
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations#Document_topic_example
>
> "...A very common scenario is to want to describe the subject (also
> often called 'topic') of a document, by using a controlled vocabulary
> rather than arbitrary keywords. The library and bibliographic community
> have created many such systems over the years, and they are increasingly
> available as open structured data. Often such vocabularies are expressed
> using W3C's SKOS system, which models them as a hierarchy of linked
> 'concepts', each with textual (possibly multilingual) labels of various
> kinds. See the final report of the W3C Linked Library Data
> <http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2011/10/27/w3c-library-linked-data-xg-final-report-published/>
> group for more details.
>
> For schema.org <http://schema.org>, the CreativeWork class has a
> property 'about' whose values can come from controlled value systems.
> For example, the Library of Congress use LCSH, and assign Web
> identifiers to each concept there. Many other vocabularies do likewise."
>
> One thing that would be within scope for this group would be to propose
> bib-specific additions to the list of authoritative datasets.
>
> It might also be instructive to take note in these discussions (which I
> admit to not following closely) of the decisions that the GoodRelations
> group have made wrt schema.org <http://schema.org>:
> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org
>
> Jon Phipps
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     Is the intention here to allow the markup of taxonomy and concept
>     lists that are presented as Web pages? Or is the intention to add
>     taxonomies/lists to schema.org <http://schema.org> that will be used
>     as values? I ask because AFAIK schema.org <http://schema.org> does
>     not yet have defined value lists, so this would be a significant
>     change, and from the conversation so far I'm not clear about the
>     intention.
>
>     kc
>
>
>
>     On 1/10/13 5:55 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
>         +1
>
>         Jeff
>
>         *From:*Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@__mondeca.com
>         <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]
>         *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:30 AM
>         *To:* public-vocabs@w3.org <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>
>         *Subject:* Re: Should we adopt SKOS?
>
>         Hello all
>
>         Already too many cooks around this pot, but here goes ...
>
>         Whatever the choice made by schema.org <http://schema.org>
>         <http://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
>         <mailto:danbri@danbri.org> <mailto:danbri@danbri.org
>         <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>>>
>
>
>         On 9 Jan 2013 20:26, "Jason Douglas" <jasondouglas@google.com
>         <mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>
>         <mailto:jasondouglas@google.__com
>         <mailto: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
>         <http://schema.org>
>         <http://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 <http://schema.org> <http://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 <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com <mailto: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
>         <mailto:guha@google.com>
>         <mailto:guha@google.com <mailto: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 <mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>
>         <mailto:jasondouglas@google.__com
>         <mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>>> wrote:
>           >>>>
>           >>>>
>           >>>>
>           >>>>
>           >>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dan Brickley
>         <danbri@danbri.org <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>
>         <mailto:danbri@danbri.org <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>>> wrote:
>           >>>>>
>           >>>>> +Cc: Jamie
>           >>>>>
>           >>>>> On 9 January 2013 16:29, Richard Wallis
>         <richard.wallis@oclc.org <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>
>         <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.__org
>         <mailto: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 <http://schema.org>
>         <http://schema.org>
>         descriptions without going
>           >>>>> 'multi-namespace'. There are also already various corners of
>           >>>>> schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://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/
>         <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/>
>           >>>>> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-__reference/
>         <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/>
>           >>>>> > [3]
>         http://www.w3.org/wiki/__WebSchemas/__ExternalEnumerations
>         <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations>
>           >>>>> > [4] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/__subjects.html
>         <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html>
>           >>>>> >
>           >>>>>
>           >>>>
>           >>>
>           >>
>           >>
>           >>
>           >> --
>           >> -Thad
>           >> http://www.freebase.com/view/__en/thad_guidry
>         <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>           >
>           >
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         *Bernard Vatant*
>
>         Vocabularies & Data Engineering
>
>         Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
>         <tel:%2B%2033%20%280%299%2071%2048%2084%2059>
>
>         Skype :bernard.vatant
>         Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
>
>         ------------------------------__--------------------------
>
>         *Mondeca*****
>
>         3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
>
>         www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> <http://www.mondeca.com/>
>
>         Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews
>         <http://twitter.com/#%21/__mondecanews
>         <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 19:53:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2013 19:53:48 GMT