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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:58:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaPxiEtzUSQ5nLUqMgxgDVURC96fWqFU-NXV_q8BzLfpCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
That is my use case Karen and everyone...

To use existing SKOS controlled lists, or vocabularies, or hierarchical
lists, whatever you call them... but being able to point to an existing
SKOS Concept out there in the World Wide Web, like "Painting" and being
able to re-use the work done by others to classify, codify, put into a
hierarchy, the concept of a "Painting", the art form, as well as seeing the
relationship to the other concept of "painting", that is the Verb that
expresses the "doing" of making the noun "Painting"... i.e.... I am
"painting" a "Painting". :-) and also gaining for free, a vast structure of
organized knowledge built by others that let's me use and see Broader,
Narrower, Related, Alternate Labels, etc, etc, blah blah...

That's what SKOS means to me.  Sharing and re-using already built
hierarchical lists.

I do not necessarily care about the "name or term" that is ultimately
chosen or this discussion getting elaborated any longer.  I can read docs
easy enough on Schema.org.  I think we as a community are a bit too worried
about some developer such as myself, not paying attention to the docs or a
simple description and getting the intended use WRONG.  I think we are also
pushing to hard on the idea of a single term to descibe this... the term
(whichever one is choosen) has a description and definition.  As long as
the term that is chosen, is documented well enough on the Schema.org site
and also says that "hey, this is the Schema.org
Concept/Topic/EnumConcept/BIG_BLAH and it is used the same as a SKOS
Concept and has the same meaning and intended use, AND you can gain
incredible & free hierarchies by pointing and mapping to already existing
SKOS Concepts and Lists and noting that this is the "sameAs" ...and btw for
more info on SKOS & it's awesome history, look here dude:"


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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<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 <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>>
>> ------------------------------**----------------------------
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 15:59:18 UTC

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