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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:28:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv8mOrmNLAv0ocRK-Bh_d2sDUT9P23N7K8WXfLpwGFH4=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Come on folks ... let's continue the discussion ... we are well on our way
to the first schema.org centi-thread.

Just joking. After all this, can everyone live with EnumConcept?

guha


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Google Knowledge Graph is well aware of LoC's IDs and the Concept of
> "Sustainable Agriculture".  You just do not see the results of the efforts
> on any Google Search Results page YET.  But it is coming...patience.
>
> Bernard, you can get a sense of what Google's Knowledge Graph "knows" and
> will eventually show about that particular concept by looking at the JSON
> output from the graph for that LoC ID of sh87004216 here:
> https://www.googleapis.com/freebase/v1/search?query=sh87004216&filter(all%20type:/type/object/key)&indent=true&output=((all%20all))
>
> the (all all) outputs everything the Knowledge Graph knows outputting 2
> ply for the results.. if you only want 1 ply... then just change the
> output=(all)
>
> If you wanted to see only the Broader's and their Peer_of relationships...
> then like this output=((narrower_than peer_of))  like so:
>
> https://www.googleapis.com/freebase/v1/search?query=sh87004216&filter(all%20type:/type/object/key)&indent=true&output=((narrower_than%20peer_of))
>
> (full docs for the API are here if you want to play more:
> https://developers.google.com/freebase/ )
>
> What your seeing is all gooble-gook, in JSON formating when you click on
> those links, but ....
>
> Google is in the midst of "soonish" providing faceting and sub-searching
> tools to help visualize results with Broader / Narrower / Related / etc...
> based on SKOS Concepts.  I happen to be one of the folks involved in
> populating the Graph itself and linking SKOS Concepts.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bernard, to provide a general answer to both of your questions
>> parenthetically prefaced "from a SEO point of view," I've yet to see any
>> evidence that any search engine has ever used any external URI provided in
>> schema.org markup in order to produce a rich snippet, change the ranking
>> order of web pages or return a resource in the SERPs based solely on such a
>> reference.
>>
>> This doesn't mean that the search engines *aren't* ingesting and using
>> these data, only that there's no observed evidence that they're doing so.
>>
>> (I don't know whether Martin Hepp or anyone else has observed a
>> demonstrable impact in the SERPs as a result of referencing
>> productontology.org URIs via additionalType - I'd certainly be
>> interested in hearing of such cases if they exist!)
>>
>> But this lack of evidence is not unimportant from an SEO practitioner's
>> point of view, because as a result there's no incentive to employ such
>> mechanisms:  the demonstrated "added value" is zero.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Bernard Vatant <
>> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Thad
> 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 23:28:56 UTC

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