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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 01:42:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jf4dobB7Os=_4cetGTf0d3h6O8Vg-jtVZUTfd=AsF1v4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, 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>, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> > 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.
> Let's make sure to keep a strong link to SKOS terminology and
> documentation, even if we don't call the class 'Concept'.

Does that mean linking this new schema.org class to skos:Concept using
rdfs:subClassOf or owl:equivalentClass? I'd really like that. :)

> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >> EnumConcept could pass.
> >> From: Thad Guidry [mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com]
> [...]
> >> 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
> Can anyone here _not_ live with EnumConcept, given the various
> constraints and viewpoints expressed so far?

Although I'm quite supportive of "just use Concept", I have found it a bit
odd that it (skos:Concept) actually means something more artificial than
the name implies (being the managed notion within a scheme, having
dcterms:created dates and such, and being correlated to things using
foaf:focus). So I definitely sympathize with your reasoning and objective.
(I could possibly go for Topic as well – the relationship between SKOS and
Topic Maps has certainly struck me at times).

But to be clear: would an EnumConcept be a *part of* an Enumeration (the
latter then, as previously suggested, being related to ConceptScheme)? Or
would it *be* an Enumeration? Which then itself, just as e.g.
BookFormatType, has *instances* – instead of "narrower" terms? I would have
expected skos:Concept to be more equivalent to just Intangible in general.


>  Dan
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 23:43:56 UTC

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