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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:09:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv_c4FWF6N1s6QTrB6QHUXa2rag4BLBDie5gFBU0idCwEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Jeremy Tarling <jeremy.tarling@bbc.co.uk>, Andreas Gebhard <Andreas.Gebhard@gettyimages.com>, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Just to be clear ... Schema.org 'assimilating' SKOS (or anything else) does
not gate anything. You can most certainly go ahead and

  "publish pages about concepts described in a controlled vocabulary and to
describe the controlled vocabulary itself"

today. Schema.org encourages the use of multiple vocabularies.

guha


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree, this would be a useful addition. Thanks Stéphane!
>
> Would it be too much to ask for the addition of owl:equivalentClass and
> owl:equivalentProperty links to the respective SKOS classes and properties,
> given that this is a direct import of these? It would be cumbersome to have
> that information out-of-band.
>
> (I do still find it troublesome that being "able to publish pages about
> concepts described in a controlled vocabulary and to describe the
> controlled vocabulary itself" is not considered possible until Schema.org
> assimilates SKOS. Technically it has been possible for many years. Of
> course, I do understand the cognitive strain of going anywhere else than to
> schema.org – which is why I support doing this. But for the sake of
> interoperability and varying needs, interlinking vocabularies is also
> important. And by knowing that these terms explicitly reuse SKOS,
> documentation and knowledge about that can be leveraged – and data using
> the Schema.org equivalents can be used in systems working with SKOS (if
> these also get the mappings, of course).)
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>> +Cc: Jeremy, Andreas
>>
>> On 22 September 2013 21:12, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Personally, I'm strongly in favor of this SKOS-lite proposal and would
>> like
>> > to see it in schema.org. This would be useful in particular for the
>> Drupal 8
>> > schema.org integration. In Drupal 7 we've been using skos:Concept and
>> > skos:prefLabel to annotate the taxonomy terms type and name in RDFa (see
>> > example [1]). There is currently no real equivalent in schema.org. At
>> the
>> > moment we're using the weaker schema:Thing in Drupal 8, but having a
>> > schema:Concept would be more appropriate IMO. In Drupal, taxonomy terms
>> (aka
>> > tags) are often use to tag articles or pieces of content in general.
>> We're
>> > currently using schema:about to link articles to their tags in the
>> default
>> > article content type that comes pre-installed, so having a
>> schema:Concept
>> > would be a good companion to schema:about, and more precise than
>> > schema:Thing.
>>
>> Hey, this is great - many thanks for restarting this discussion.
>>
>> I am very sympathetic to this too. We have several ad-hoc places in
>> schema.org where categories and code lists could be modeled in a more
>> structured manner (but without having a full entities/properties
>> approach). For example, JobPosting job taxonomies, LRMI educational
>> AlignmentObject codes, recipe and event categories, ... It has also
>> cropped up in recent discussion around the idea of additional rNews
>> extensions relating to http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/storyline/
>>
>> I'm not sure the direct mapping of ConceptScheme to Enumeration works
>> as intended, but that's a relatively minor point. I imagine some
>> vocabulary publishers might choose to publish using RDFa Lite + SKOS +
>> schema.org simultaneously.
>>
>> Stéphane, on the Drupal front, how much is built-in to the core now
>> versus handled by one of the countless 3rd party Drupal extensions?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> > Steph.
>> >
>> > [1] http://zbw.eu/labs/en/taxonomy/term/3
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
>> > <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've added the SKOS proposal sent by Jean Delahousse to the wiki [1]
>> and
>> >> converted it to a schema.org RDFS document [2].
>> >>
>> >> We should probably discuss this proposal further now that's it's on the
>> >> wiki.
>> >>
>> >> Steph.
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SKOS
>> >> [2]
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/raw-file/tip/schema.org/ext/skos.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi!
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10 January 2013 11:13, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hello,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I have worked on a integration of SKOS into Schema.org.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The idea is to be able to publish pages about concepts described in
>> a
>> >>> > controled vocabulary and to describe the controlled vocabulary
>> itself.
>> >>> > Use case can be the publication of a library controlled vocabulary
>> as
>> >>> > Rameau
>> >>> > from the French National Library (
>> http://data.bnf.fr/13318366/musique/)
>> >>> > or
>> >>> > authorities by Library of Congress
>> >>> > (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2003003686.html) , or a
>> >>> > glossary
>> >>> > in a web site.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I attached the draft. I would be happy to go on with this project
>> with
>> >>> > some
>> >>> > of you.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for making a concrete proposal - this is really positive! Your
>> >>> reward is that I ask something more from you ;)
>> >>>
>> >>> Would you have time to make an HTML+RDFa+RDFS version of this
>> proposal?
>> >>>
>> >>> There are some examples in our WebSchemas area of W3C Mercurial repo,
>> >>> here:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope they are almost self-explanatory. We can get you access or just
>> >>> send along HTML by mail/wiki. If you don't have time I 100%
>> >>> understand, but I'm trying to build a workflow here that doesn't
>> >>> suffer from my being a bottleneck, so hopefully this machine-readable
>> >>> proposals mechanism will help...
>> >>>
>> >>> cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Steph.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Steph.
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 19:09:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC