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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:24:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAO+52yWXCxgZoVdag=c0-rDYkkDr3uc0SHk3Wfeu-a325cq=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>

I followed the exchanges with a lot of attention.
I think EnumConcept would be a fine name.
I am not sure about this, but will we be allowed to declare a thing as both
as a place (or a product, or an organisation) and an enum concept ? as
controlled vocabulary is mostly a point of view on the things.
About use cases, a very simple one is the publication of a thesaurus, for
example FAO or Eurovoc in the web, with one page for each concept
showing its pref-label and alt-labels in various languages, definition,


2013/10/9 Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>

> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> As they stand I'm -0 on both the name EnumConcept and the proposal to
> add SKOS to schema.org [1]. EnumConcept doesn't exactly roll off the
> tongue or conjure up a useful image for me. Maybe I missed it, but the
> original request from Jean Delahousse [2] doesn't quite explain why
> they didn't want to use SKOS directly in their HTML using RDFa or
> Microdata.
> I don't disagree that it would be good to be able to use URLs to name
> terms using properties like schema:occupationalCategory [3], but I'm
> still not understanding what this has to do with importing SKOS into
> schema.org. Why make it harder for people to decide which vocabulary
> to use? If they have a controlled vocabulary or thesaurus, and want to
> put it on the Web, they have a good solution in SKOS + RDFa. Why do we
> want to make it more complicated for them to decide by adding SKOS
> like functionality to schema.org? If you need to be able to name
> things with URLs using terms like schema:occupationalCategory I'd like
> to see a proposal for that instead of loading up schema.org with SKOS.
> In general I support the idea of schema.org importing things from
> other vocabularies that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo would like to
> implement in their search products. It provides documentation and
> shared semantics for what these applications are doing, and gives Web
> publishers strong incentives to use it. But as it stands, very little
> of schema.org seems to actually be used by these companies, at least
> in public facing applications. I would like to see schema.org be what
> it says it is,
> """
> ... a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use
> to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers.
> """
> I voted -0 because I don't want my negative opinion to get in the way
> of you and the other schema.org partners (Microsoft, Yahoo) doing
> actual work if you have something in mind. In fact, I'd be curious to
> hear them weigh in on it, since it's their opinion and willingness to
> implement that actually matters.
> //Ed
> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SKOS
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0062.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0039.html

 Jean Delahousse
delahousse.jean@gmail.com - +33 6 01 22 48 55  http://jean-delahousse.net/
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 12:25:47 UTC

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