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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:05:23 -0700
Message-ID: <52557EC3.8000603@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
I agree with Ed on the naming (and on much else that he has said). I 
don't think it will be easy to explain when to define a 
schema/Enumeration and when to use schema/enumConcept. Obviously, there 
is no bright line, but for each list a metadata developer will need to 
make the choice.

The use of "enum" is likely to cause more confusion between these two 
use cases. Much care will need to be taken in defining enumConcept, and 
there may need to be additional documentation (beyond the short 
definition) to make this clear.

I actually think that both "enum" and "Concept" are problematic. What is 
the essence of this property? Is it that its values are members of an 
external list? Or ...? Whatever it is, it seems that the name should 
evoke something that resonates to that meaning.


On 10/9/13 8:44 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> Ok, that's a good reason. But does EnumConcept sound like something
> that's easy to use? Also, does something as abstract as a concept
> sound easy to use in the context of everything else that is in
> schema.org?
> For me the answer is no...at least with what I know now about the proposal.
> //Ed
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
>>> But why would that person want to use schema.org to
>> mark up their Concept/Term thing instead of SKOS.
>> My response to that would be: Ease of use!
>> The vast majority of people in the world have no idea semantic mark up
>> exists. Let alone that they know how to use it. That's something we'd all
>> like to change. To make that possible it simply much easier to have 1 source
>> and 1 vocabulary for people to learn and to implement.
>> Working with semantics is now mostly a job for people who are already
>> involved in this and have a basic understanding. 99.9% of the other people
>> in the world don't and I think it's up to us to create a mechanism so they
>> can easily start implementing semantics as well.
>> The use of different vocabularies simply isn't really doable for a novice.
>> Heck it's already hard for people who are involved.
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Doesn't *somebody" have to define it inline?  Otherwise, how does it
>>>> exist
>>>> for other people to refer to by URL?  :)
>>> Yes, of course :-) But why would that person want to use schema.org to
>>> mark up their Concept/Term thing instead of SKOS.
>>> //Ed

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 16:05:51 UTC

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