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

Re: On linking vocabularies (Was: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion)

From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:32:41 -0500
Message-ID: <5255F5A9.1090203@mkbergman.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org, lindstream@gmail.com
Hi Niklas,

Please see below . . .

On 10/9/2013 6:10 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Topic change (pun unintended)..
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Martin Hepp
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all:
>
>     The new element in schema.org <http://schema.org> and a few
>     properties taken from SKOS would not prevent anybody from publishing
>     a thesaurus in a proper Linked Data way, fully based on SKOS, with
>     just the schema.org <http://schema.org> classes and properties
>     attached in parallel.
>
>     There is no either or, and we should keep in mind that the goals of
>     advancing the idea of the "Semantic Web" or "Linked Data" and the
>     goals of schema.org <http://schema.org> and its supporters are
>     related, yet not identical.
>
>
> Indeed. Though I think there is enormous value to gain from convergence
> in technical approaches.
>
> As I mentioned a while back, I share concerns similar to Ed's in
> principle: using SKOS and only SKOS for this *should* be enough ,
> logically. It is only because of the convenience that I find any
> "importing" into schema.org <http://schema.org> viable at all.
> Thankfully, for the fans of formal logic and such, by using RDFS or
> better yet OWL, both points of view can be satisfied.
>
> The key point is that there will quite likely be semantic drift unless
> the schema.org <http://schema.org> class and properties are explicitly
> linked to their SKOS counterparts. And I don't mean this in the "my OWL
> system will break" way – I mean in a pure, social contract kind of way.
> This can be avoided with the added level of precision that a:
>
>      sdo:EnumConcept owl:equivalentClass skos:Concept .
>
> statement brings (giving very little room for misinterpretation). I was
> very glad to see that the Dataset configuration that Dan provided [1]
> contains similar data. (It'd be great to have that incorporated into the
> relevant term pages.) And I strongly support Dan's excellent points,
> like: "Saying they're the same is much simpler".
>
> Following from this comes an important question: could the major
> consumers of schema.org <http://schema.org> data (i.e. the big search
> engines) consider it feasible to also use this mapping information as a
> way of declaring that the equivalent terms – here skos:Concept – have
> equal standing in consumed data? By which I mean that existing SKOS
> data, published in some schema.org <http://schema.org> approved syntax
> such as RDFa, can be used as is, without any *need* to sprinkle in these
> equivalent things? If that would be feasible, it would represent a
> controlled, limited, but still formally giant leap forward in linking
> vocabularies.
>
> (The schema.org <http://schema.org> "aliases" would provide a very low
> barrier to entry, and do fine for web developers doing some structured
> SEO. Further on, those looking enhance the Knowledge Graph can use them
> too. But they'd explicitly link further, in this case to SKOS, for those
> finding that particular venue valuable (e.g. libraries) in *both* this
> and their own contexts.)
>
> (With this, other parts of well-known vocabularies, like DC and FOAF,
> could be explicitly mapped to lessen the need for choice or redundancy
> in certain cases. And in a more distant future, perhaps this "vocabulary
> aliasing" practice could be extended to take other equivalencies than
> the ones schema.org <http://schema.org> itself declares into account.
> E.g. using a pattern like the one we defined in RDFa 1.1, called
> "Vocabulary Expansion" [2].)

It is unclear what the "very small sub-set of OWL entailment[s]" are in 
the [2] reference. Could you expand or point to the definitive reference?

Thanks, Mike

>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
> [1]:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/3879206aa3f7/schema.org/ext/dataset.html
> [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_vocab_expansion
>
>     Martin
>
>     On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:16 PM, jean delahousse wrote:
>
>      > Hello,
>      >
>      > In the use cases I know about thesaurus or taxonomy publishing,
>     you want several publication supports:
>      > - xml/skos file to be downloaded
>      > - sparql endpoint to query the controlled vocabulary
>      > - html version for search engine and human navigation
>      >
>      > For each publication you want to provide all the semantic
>     information in the most reusable way. It seems the best way to
>     provide the semantic of a controlled vocabulary publish in html
>     pages would be to use schema.org <http://schema.org> if you could
>     find the proper class and properties.
>      >
>      > Find here a data.bnf.fr <http://data.bnf.fr> page about a concept
>     belonging to the Rameau thesaurus, it has no schema.org
>     <http://schema.org> annotations, as there is no such properties
>     avalaible today in schema.org <http://schema.org>, but for the
>     related pages about works and persons it was possible to map part of
>     the frbr properties into schema.org <http://schema.org> properties
>     and then to publish more semantic in the html page.
>      > concept : http://data.bnf.fr/13319064/science_politique/
>      > person classified with the concept :
>     http://data.bnf.fr/12085503/thomas_jefferson/
>      >
>      > "Science_politique" deserve the same chance to be well described
>     in a web page as cookie recipe or a song.
>      >
>      > As you see in the data.bnf.fr <http://data.bnf.fr> it, there is
>     no more complexity for a user to understand a page about a person, a
>     work or a concept.
>      >
>      > data.bnf.fr <http://data.bnf.fr> also publish the rameau
>     thesaurus as xml/skos files as it publishes the works as xml/rdf
>     files using a bnf ontology mainly based on frbr.
>      >
>      > Jean
>      >
>      > 2013/10/9 Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com <mailto:ehs@pobox.com>>
>      > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:24 AM, jean delahousse
>      > <delahousse.jean@gmail.com <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      > > 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,
>      > > exactMatch...
>      >
>      > Thanks for responding Jean. Can you describe why you would prefer to
>      > publish this structured data in your HTML using schema.org
>     <http://schema.org> rather than
>      > using SKOS directly?
>      >
>      > //Ed
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Jean Delahousse
>      > JDC
>      >
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > delahousse.jean@gmail.com <mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com> -
>     +33 6 01 22 48 55 <tel:%2B33%206%2001%2022%2048%2055>
>     http://jean-delahousse.net/
>      >
>      >
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>     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/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 00:33:19 UTC

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