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

Re: schema.org growth what are the limits?

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <51F6235D.4030606@tu-cottbus.de>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Dear Dan and Bernard,

According with the Schema terms http://schema.org/docs/terms.html it is 
clear that it is intended to be an open vocabulary. I would expect a 
perpetual beta developing along with the need of its founders.

Therefore let's encourage people to don't get worried on the size and 
start doing applications just using the classes and properties they need.

For example, sometime ago Google used URI's for places (hard to find now 
an example) but recently they use a "producer" URL 
http://google.com/producer/s/CBIwxaDbZA 
<http://google.com/producer/s/CBIwxaDbZA> as well as "publishers" URLs.

So this Schema.org will never end unless it will be discontinued by its 
founders.

Regards,
Adrian


On 7/26/2013 5:27 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
> On 26 July 2013 16:13, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com 
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello all
>
>     This is a question I has been wanting to push here for quite a while.
>     If my counting are correc, schema.org <http://schema.org> latest
>     version has 428 classes + 582 properties = 1010 elements.
>     The number of candidate and potential extensions is likely to grow
>     at a steady pace. Now that a handful of early adopter industries
>     and communities have successfully pushed their vocabularies into
>     schema.org <http://schema.org>, many others are likely to follow
>     when they discover their obvious interest in doing so. And this
>     when is now or quite soon, obviously.
>
>     This growth is a good thing, but it will, and actually has already
>     hit known limits in this kind of exercise, which once again boils
>     down to represent the whole world in a unique model, and a unique
>     namespace.
>
>     The first point is not really an issue. The semantics of
>     schema.org <http://schema.org> are "soft" enough to accomodate
>     slight inconsistencies between various branches of the vocabulary,
>     for exemple the same property used here and there with slightly
>     different semantics will not really be an issue if those branches
>     are unlikely to be used in the same context.
>
>     The unique namespace is another issue. Once a name has been used
>     to identify a class or a property, it can't be reused for
>     something else. New extensions will have to cope with the legacy.
>     Suppose I want to use http://schema.org/study for something else
>     than a MedicalEntity and MedicalStudy Suppose DDI people want to
>     introduce their concept of Study [1]. What will be the negotiation
>     process?
>
>     More generally is there a limit one could set for a manageable
>     sensible size of the vocabulary? 10,000? 100,000?
>     Is there a plan of any kind to put a limit in size or in time to
>     the vocabulary growth?
>
>
> We don't have an iron-clad policy for any of this. It's more 
> opportunistic than that. If we can improve the Web by adding more 
> types and properties here and there, we'll try to do so. At the same 
> time, as you point out, there are natural limits. So the 'external 
> enumerations' discussion was important, for example. And external 
> efforts like Wikidata are very important.  My favourite example is 
> http://schema.org/PlaceOfWorship ... we can't really have schema.org 
> <http://schema.org> enumerate all the kinds of place of workship that 
> might fit there. But we can expect schema.org <http://schema.org> to 
> show how external lists (like Wikidata's, or Freebase's) plug in.
>
> For vocabulary clash, it is an issue, but perhaps we can work around 
> it in many cases. I noticed rather too recently that the 'action' 
> property name has already been used up for a relatively niche use (on 
> 'Muscle'): http://schema.org/action - "The movement the muscle 
> generates." What I'd suggest here is a combination of asking around to 
> see if people are using it heavily or planning to, plus (at the search 
> engines) looking at crawl data. If it isn't widely used yet, it might 
> be a good candidate for renaming muscleAction. This might seem 
> awkward, but there is a lot also to be gained from having a simple 
> namespace structure...
>
> Dan
>
>
>     Thanks for your thoughts.
>
>     Bernard
>
>     [1] http://rdf-vocabulary.ddialliance.org/discovery
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     *Bernard Vatant
>     *
>     Vocabularies & Data Engineering
>     Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
>     Skype : bernard.vatant
>     Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://bvatant.blogspot.com>
>     Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org <http://lov.okfn.org>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>     *Mondeca*****
>     3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
>     www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
>     Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews
>     <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------
>     Mondeca is co-chairing
>     Long-term Preservation and Governance of RDF Vocabularies
>     <http://dcevents.dublincore.org/IntConf/index/pages/view/vocPres>
>     at Dublin Core Conference
>
>

-- 
-Adrian
Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/giurca>
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/adriangiurca>
Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 08:10:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:28 UTC