Hi, On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:28 AM, 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? > > guha > (.. Have we reached a hundred yet?) In relation to the name, and Dan's question: "are there any instances of Enumerations that are not also instances of (Enum)Concept", I have some questions. If EnumConcept instances are to be instances of some specific Enumeration subclass, I'd say there is a difference between that and the SKOS (skos:inScheme) approach. Could it be problematic to have this schema.orgperspective on, say, LCSH expect its structured terms to be declared as instances of some LCSHEnumeration class (which is reasonably not the same thing as LCSH the skos:ConceptScheme)? Of course, you could figure that anything that has skos:inScheme LCSH also has rdf:type LCSHEnumeration. But the variance in shape seems troubling to me. (That is, if a relation like this to Enumeration is to be expected.) (In any case, perhaps sdo:isPartOf (once it's generalized) could work as a generic correspondent to skos:inScheme. Much like sdo:name, which I *guess* is owl:equivalentProperty rdfs:label, and thus enough to correlate to skos:prefLabel (albeit the latter has much more specific constraints.) Otherwise, I think just Concept would do. To me, it doesn't stand out as much more generic than any of the (other) <http://schema.org/Intangible> subclasses (or for that matter, in the general potpourri of Artery, AlignmentObject, AdultEntertainment..). Sure, Topic or StructuredTerm may be more accessible – short of user tests, we can only guess. Cheers, Niklas
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 22:45:59 UTC