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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:45:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jciYMVFLgfy7969i5iACJnMdgZa7NvYLg_ZXh7cpC8Q-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guha <guha@google.com>
Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
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

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