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: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:52:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-Y2UmwhfNaEzWXZLY-QPoYp7txgLeKCiG-diMtJVY8yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
It was a precursor to what is now the Description logic community.

Look at this<http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~weltyc/papers/phd/HTML/dissertation-14.html>for
example.

guha


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Martin Hepp <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi Stephane:
> I think it is important to stress that "right" is not sufficient for Web
> vocabulary elements, they must be first and foremost intuitive for a broad
> audience of Web developers.
> And I share Guha's concerns that "concept" is, while the proper term,
> overloaded and used by many communities with varying meaning.
>
> Maybe TerminologyConcept? Or simply Topic?
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 7:43 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>
> > Do you have pointers or references to these Knowledge Representation
> systems where Concept is not the same as skos:Concept? Isn't that
> considered an edge case? How popular are these compared to the regular use
> of Concept (as in SKOS). Isn't that a caveat that there "related
> communities" are aware of and could live with?
> >
> > Steph.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> > Good point. Maybe not SkosConcept, but something else. My fear is the
> word 'Concept' is so general, that it will be mistaken.  For example, there
> are kinds of Knowledge Representation systems where Concept is the
> equivalent of what is called 'Resource' in RDF. I absolutely want it as a
> universal type, I am just worried about folks in related communities
> misunderstanding it.
> >
> > guha
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet <
> scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Isn't that a slippery slope towards having namespaces in schema.org?
> (e.g. FoafPerson, GrProduct). What's the intention here? Keep
> http://schema.org/Concept in case we want to have a generic 'Concept'
> type later? What's making this proposal too Skos specific that it cannot
> fulfill the generic type of 'Concept'? Why not just tell people to use
> skos:Concept then (from the skos namespace)?
> >
> > I don't see the benefits of introducing a namespace/provenance in the
> type. I think it would make it confusing and require people to have
> knowledge about the origin vocabulary where the term came from, which goes
> agasint the goals of schema.org (might as well just use the original term
> namespace). Also, namespacing terms isn't something that has been done
> before in schema.org.
> >
> > Steph.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> > Could we rename 'Concept', which sounds too general, to SkosConcept or
> something like that?
> >
> > Would be great to see a worked out example.
> >
> > guha
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:08 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steph.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 17:53:29 UTC

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