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

RE: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 20:20:05 +0000
To: 'Jarno van Driel' <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
CC: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Guha <guha@google.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A71D9E70FCEE5E40A5EAA598864E605705E1193C@maildrs.gva.ebu.ch>
Yes, ten times Yes, a hundred times Yes.

As I said in an earlier mail why should it be future proposals to find better names if they can't fit Concept.

From: Jarno van Driel [mailto:jarno@quantumspork.nl]
Sent: lundi, 7. octobre 2013 22:04
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Thad Guidry; Dan Brickley; Guha; Martin Hepp; Stéphane Corlosquet; Dan Brickley; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

Call me crazy, but I presume the folks who designed SKOS already had a discussion like this, isn't it therefore a bit strange to have the same discussion all over again. Looking at all the existing documentation (which refers to 'Concept') there is, wouldn't it make the general developer's life a lot easier if the naming stays the same?

That way there are a lot of resources one can use, instead of yet another property which more or less does the same. In my opinion that would only add to the confusion.

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch<mailto:evain@ebu.ch>> wrote:
EnumConcept could pass.



From: Thad Guidry [mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>]
Sent: lundi, 7. octobre 2013 21:53
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: Guha; Martin Hepp; Stéphane Corlosquet; Dan Brickley; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>

Subject: Re: SKOS for schema.org<http://schema.org> proposal for discussion

Dan, Stéphane,

I am less than the average developer... I don't even know javascript.  But I do know about general classification, having worked in a library.

After reading about SKOS Concept, I was immediately aware that I would have 2 basic important properties that I cared about and that I could use... Broader & Narrower.

It does not HAVE to be called SkosConcept... but as long as the definition shows it's origin and that Broader & Narrower among others, are part of the bargain, then I think all web developers will easily comprehend what you mean and what neat interconnections they can bring to expand knowledge and organize directed Search queries even more.

+1 for EnumConcept and I also saw the tie in to http://schema.org/Enumeration  ( "Named" does not help signify that basic "organization" feeling that SKOS is all about....Knowledge Organization.... but Enumeration or Enum does.)

--
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com<http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
________________________________

**************************************************
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
**************************************************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
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
**************************************************
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 20:20:59 UTC

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