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 09:09:47 -0700
Message-ID: <52557FCB.70004@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
This is a good example. However, do you think that those users see these 
categories as something called name "Concept"? I still think that most 
users are thinking of finite, controlled lists, and "Concept" doesn't 
say that. SKOS used concept because of its KOS bent. A schema.org re-use 
of SKOS's structure could use terminology more suited to its community.

kc

On 10/9/13 8:54 AM, Guha wrote:
> Great example Martin.
>
> guha
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Martin Hepp
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>> wrote:
>
>     A very simple use-case that we frequently face in e-commerce:
>
>     Sites do have category information (sometimes even based on standard
>     categories), but they are unable to include the authoritative URI of
>     that category in the page markup, e.g. because it is simply not in
>     their back-end database or because there is no simple translation
>     from what they have in their database to the URI.
>
>     A typical case are shop categories. Sites often do have a notion of
>     product category, and even an hierarchical ordering, but they are
>     unable to match that to the URIs of respective standards with
>     reasonable effort.
>
>     Having a SKOS-like mechanism in schema.org <http://schema.org>
>     allows a site to expose its proprietary hierarchy and preserve the
>     links from products to it. A search engine or other client can then
>     try to consolidate categories across sites at consumption time.
>
>     Let site owners expose as much data structure and semantics as they
>     have available, but do not force them to lift the data to ideal
>     heights... ;-)
>
>     Martin
>
>     On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Ed Summers wrote:
>
>      > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com
>     <mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote:
>      >> ... in many many cases URLs can be used, ... but sometimes the thing
>      >> we point to can also be usefully described inline too, with further
>      >> properties and relationships. 'URL' is very very vague and doesn't
>      >> address the inline description possibility.
>      >
>      > Thanks Dan. I guess I'm failing to imagine a scenario where someone
>      > who was describing a job posting would want to describe an
>      > occupational category inline and relate it to other occupational
>      > categories (broader, narrower, etc), or make other skos like
>      > assertions.
>      >
>      > //Ed
>      >
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>     martin hepp
>     e-business & web science research group
>     universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
>     e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>     phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
>     fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
>     www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>     http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>     skype:   mfhepp
>     twitter: mfhepp
>
>     Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>     =================================================================
>     * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 16:10:11 UTC

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