Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

I don't think renaming 'Concept' to 'TopicName' is quite the same as
renaming it to 'Peanuts'.

And if a single rename like this would cause adopting SKOS into
schema.orgto loose all its sense, that is ... well, sad.

guha


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:

>  Frankly speaking I would not change the name of concept into something
> else or SkosConcept would cause less damage.****
>
> ** **
>
> If we do this then we change “concept” into “peanuts”, then “broader” into
> “larger” or “narrower” into “thinner”, and why not “prefLabel” (defined in
> applications as a subproperty of rdfs:label) into “name” , etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> At the end of the day, adopting SKOS in schema.org will have lost all its
> sense.****
>
> ** **
>
> BTW, “concept” is actually a “class”****
>
> ** **
>
> Jean-Pierre****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Amanda Vizedom [mailto:amanda.vizedom@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* lundi, 7. octobre 2013 19:55
> *To:* Stéphane Corlosquet
> *Cc:* Guha; Dan Brickley; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion****
>
>  ** **
>
> Perhaps the most dramatic case occurs in biological ontologies; some
> bioontology communities use 'concept' to mean 'class'.  I've seen this
> create serious communication and methodology problems when folks whose only
> ontology training or experience comes from such communities join ontology /
> semantic technology projects in other domains without managerial attention
> to this and other community-specialized practices. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Slightly old reference, but easy to hand:
> http://journals2005.pasteur.ac.ir/NB/23(9)/1095%20-%201098.pdf****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
> 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. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> * **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
> manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by the mailgateway
> ************************************************** *
>