Re: strange identifiers in schema.org

Dear Dan,
Since few months ago here we are working on the proposal to improve the 
medical entity of schema.org.
The problem you raised here may fit it. I was calling upon colleagues who 
are on the same topic to join our efforts, as I was proposing to 
coordinate this task.
So far I had no feedback on this but am optimistic we will have a 
comprehensive draft to submit as proposal in near future. Do you want to 
join the effort?

Kind Regards,

Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300

http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer: 
http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer 



From:   Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
To:     "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc:     SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Date:   07/11/2013 05:52
Subject:        Re: strange identifiers in schema.org




On Nov 6, 2013 10:36 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are there any guidelines for the construction of identifiers in 
schema.org?
>
> The reason that I ask is that there are some rather strange identifers, 
or at least some rather strange uses of identifiers.
>
>
> Consider, for example, the identifier Abdomen (http://schema.org/Abdomen
).  One might think that this refers to a part of the bodies of some 
animals.   However, Abdomen is instead an instance of PhysicalExam, along 
with Appearance, CardiovascularExam, Eye, Neuro, and VitalSign.
>
> It seems to me that this is very bad design, particularly if schema.org 
identifiers are supposed to be used by people who might not have a 
background in the representation of knowledge.
If your goal is to help improve schema.org, constructive criticism would 
be much better than just a stream of criticism. As one of my colleagues 
was fond of saying, "You found the problem, so you get to solve the 
problem".
So please lend your intellect towards helping solve the problem. Given a 
vocabulary with high rates of adoption, and the realization that some less 
than optimal design decisions have been made, what action can you take or 
recommend to address these problems?