Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

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>
----------------------------------------------------------