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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:41:10 -0700
Message-ID: <52541986.1000705@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org


On 10/8/13 3:57 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:


>
> Obviously schema.org <http://schema.org> does not need to go down those
> alleys, if you want to say you speak about a Person you use
> schema.org/Person <http://schema.org/Person> and you're done. What is
> lacking in schema.org <http://schema.org> are not SKOS artifacts for
> librarians, but ways to indicate topics which do no fall neatly in
> real-world types schema.org <http://schema.org> is typically about, such
> as cars, books, restaurants ...
> Mainly the need is to express things that are "intangible topics", more
> or less.


I actually read the discussion differently. It's not so much that people 
want to express topics in the KOS sense, but that they want to refer to 
controlled lists within their data, and SKOS covers that. SKOS gives you 
a way to define a finite list with a few useful relationships. I think 
it's the mechanism of SKOS that people are looking for, more than the 
KOS value.

Am I the only one interpreting the discussion this way? What ARE the use 
cases for SKOS?

kc


>
> Hence, why not simply define a subclass of schema.org/Intangible
> <http://schema.org/Intangible> called schema.org/Topic
> <http://schema.org/Topic> for concepts (so to speak) such as democracy,
> friendship, anger, hunger, inflation, disagreement ... which have not
> yet found a better place elsewhere in the schema. Maybe at some point
> will be introduced schema.org/Feeling <http://schema.org/Feeling> or
> schema.org/EconomicConcept <http://schema.org/EconomicConcept> and some
> of those "topics" will find a better place.
>
>     For example, if I squint enough,
>     schema.org <http://schema.org> starts looking like a
>     skos:conceptScheme. One of the things
>     I liked about schema.org <http://schema.org> initially was its
>     concreteness.
>
>
> Indeed, that's why I like Topic which seems more "concrete" than Concept
>
>     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.
>
>
> +1
>
> --
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://bvatant.blogspot.com>
> Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org <http://lov.okfn.org>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*****
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 14:41:40 UTC

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