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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 01:49:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbamhPyO35=AcnEdLapEUYHTykZj=2X-X4qEFqxQvqXMDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.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>
> EnumConcept is a type, whereas occupationalCategory and eventCategory are
properties. In this case, EnumConcept could describe one possible type for
the values of these properties.

So just to be absolute clear on this, for 'occupationalCategory' the
expected value could be 'text' but also the Thing 'EnumConcept'?

Because that's something I'd absolutely support.


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 7 October 2013 23:55, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
> >> One issue with types that have 'obvious' names is that people rarely
> feel
> >> compelled to consult their documentation.
> >
> > I think this is actually a very valid argument
> >
> >> And the word 'Enum' (for http://schema.org/Enumeration), which has been
> >> part of schema.org's model since the start.
> >
> > Seems like a proper naming and reference at the same time
> >
> >
> > Having read back the entire discussion and taking into account one could
> > always choose to add the SKOS vocabulary with 'additionalType' I have no
> > problem resolving it this way.
> >
> > So +1 for EnumConcept
>
> Thanks
>
> > One more question though:
> > Does this also imply that properties like 'eventCategory',
> > 'occupationalCategory' and 'others like it' will be depricated/retracted?
> > And if not, than why not? I can't get my head around why they would need
> to
> > to stay if the same can also be accomplished with 'EnumConcept'.
> (probable
> > I'm overlooking something but I have no idea what that might be).
>
> EnumConcept is a type, whereas occupationalCategory and eventCategory
> are properties. In this case, EnumConcept could describe one possible
> type for the values of these properties.
>
> Using Library of Congress Subject Headings as an example,
>
> We could describe an upcoming Event as having an eventCategory which
> was the (Enum)Concept described in
> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85133937.html ... labelled
> "Tensor algebra", or
> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85108275.html
> "Psuedoinverses".
>
> ... and we could describe an occupationalCategory with the
> (Enum)Concept http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85003441.html
> "Linear algebras".
>
> If these were old-style simple schema.org strings, the connection all
> these is not so obvious. But if we model them as inter-related
> concepts, we can see that the first two share a common broader
> concept...
>
> Dan
>
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 23:49:55 UTC

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