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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:06:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVHeoy5APt8-sNBKN67aTP7POkEhQQNK60Zvh9_9ygPmtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Cc: PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Let me make my point differently.

Maybe this is obvious for all users of schema.org, please point me to the
relevant resources if it's the case.

I want to say that my content (page/section) is about "Sustainable
agriculture".

I have a skos:Concept for this, defined in a good reference vocabulary
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh87004216

I can already use in the current state of affairs, the
schema.org/aboutproperty to mark my page with this URI, right?

Q1. What is the current added value (from a SEO point of view) to mark with
this URI vs marking with the string "Sustainable agriculture"? And
particularly what is the added value of having this URI being defined as a
skos:Concept in a most authoritative Concept Scheme (LCSH), instead of any
other URI such as
http://dbpedia.org/page/Sustainable_agriculture
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/dictionnaire_environnement/definition/agriculture_durable.php4

Q2. What would be the added value (always from a SEO point of view) to add
a schema.org type (whatever its name) to this URI indicating in the markup
that this URI is indeed a skos:Concept belonging to a skos:ConceptScheme,
namely LCSH (which you can discover by dereferencing the URI anyway, but do
search engines follow their nose in the markup)?

(Thinking about it I have the same question for the use of any reference
URI, be it a skos:Concept or not. What do you gain if any by using
http://id.insee.fr/geo/departement/05 instead of the string "Hautes-Alpes"
in a schema.org/Place description?)

Bernard













2013/10/8 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>

>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I had the same interpretation.
>
> I know that controlled vocabularies are sometimes seen as a nuisance
> outside of the library realm, but they are useful in the cases where
> programmers want an enumeration. SKOS is even better than a flat
> enumeration, because the vocabulary can have a hierarchy, allowing for
> inheritance.
>
> As an example, we have been working through a proposal to support civic
> services in schema.org. One of the properties of a service is
> "serviceType". It would be nice to be able to encourage people to use
> something like openelegibility.org's taxonomy so that we have some hope
> of sorting out the services automatically.
>
> - Vicki
>
>
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>
>



-- 
*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
--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**          **                   *
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
www.mondeca.com
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 17:07:22 UTC

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