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

SKOS proposal - labels and notes

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 16:25:32 +0200
Message-ID: <5263E7DC.3030006@few.vu.nl>
To: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>

Continuing on more concrete features for the proposal--mostly reacting to Holger's email [1]

I'm not sure whether the current proposal suggests to use schema:name and not separate skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel statements. E.g. in [1]:
[Judging from the SKOS
files that I have seen, many users are confused about which property to
use and end up duplicating labels.

In the SKOS data I know it seems that publishers are actually quite happy to reflect the distinctions that exist in the pre-SKOS data. The only case that is puzzling is when this original data doesn't have them from the start. I agree this also happens quite often, but it's a pity to lose the info when it's already in the original data. There are many scenarios (especially for display of information) that work much better once a preferred label has been identified.
Actually prefLabel still seems to be popular in recent models, like DCAT's re-use of SKOS [2].

Would this imply that the recommendation would be to have only one schema:name, for the preferred label, and use altLabel and hiddenLabel for variants? It may be conflicting with the possibility (already used?) to have several schema:name for something.

Anyway, I strongly support the proposal to 'upgrade' altLabel and hiddenLabel (and prefLabel if it's minted as a schema.org property) to Thing.
Actually the current version of the W3C ORG ontology uses it for Organizations [3] (well, they use prefLabel, in fact). This would make the ORG data compatible with schema.org.

On notes: I am mildly in favor of "[For] skos:definition use schema:description." There's quite some difference here. But perhaps a good side effect of having more annotation properties on Thing would be to allow cleaning of schema.org's approach to notes. There might be many note-like properties deep down in the schema.org hierarchy, they should be at the highest level possible! (if just to help us decide whether it's appropriate to bring it more notes from SKOS's namespace).

I am not a great fan of using one single 'hasNote' property in combination with a 'Note' class and subclasses of it. This is in fact quite in line with some patterns allowed by SKOS, where notes are 'related resources' [4]. But in a schema.org scenario it's perhaps too complex!



[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secadvanceddocumentation


Thad this is awesome!
Received on Sunday, 20 October 2013 14:26:12 UTC

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