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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 05:52:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CABzDd=6jEDf4F3Fyqawtk+CeqjUV_H=ygb2fFUywJJiNC2_JKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Guha <guha@google.com>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I guess I missed an earlier conversation about this, but why do folks
want to import SKOS into schema.org? Can't they just use SKOS as is in
their HTML using RDFa or Microdata? Is the expectation that putting it
into schema.org will make it more likely to be used by both Web
publishers and consumers (crawlers, etc)?

In general I agree with Guha that skos:Concept seems pretty close to
Resource, or really, schema:Thing. For example, if I squint enough,
schema.org starts looking like a skos:conceptScheme. One of the things
I liked about schema.org initially was its concreteness. There are
lots of very plain types that people can choose to use without having
to think too hard about them. I personally don't think giving people
machinery to start saying abstract things about concepts is going to
be terribly fruitful.


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> I would paraphrase Guha
> "if using enumConcept is enough to discourage a broad audience to use schema.org, then it it sad"
> Jean-pierre
> ________________________________________
> From: Martin Hepp [martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org]
> Sent: 08 October 2013 08:20
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: Jarno van Driel; Evain, Jean-Pierre; Thad Guidry; Dan Brickley; Guha; Stéphane Corlosquet; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Can anyone here _not_ live with EnumConcept, given the various
>> constraints and viewpoints expressed so far?
>> Dan
> I personally would prefer TerminologyConcept or TerminologicalConcept, because the notion of Enumeration and in particular the abbreviation Enum is, IMO, a bit difficult for broad audiences.
> But I am not religious about it. EnumConcept could do.
> Martin
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> **************************************************
> 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 Tuesday, 8 October 2013 09:53:06 UTC

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