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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:07:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-viNn_wdy2AUkP_iiLTVrkey3W62ZLcHmT9db6hgeLPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Reviving the thread ...

Schema.org already uses Enumeration in the unordered sense. So, could you
live with EnumConcept?


On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
> Interesting that the topic has been stalled for one week, especially in
> the middle of a discussion on naming ;-). It looks like it will end like
> earlier SKOS threads, which also lead to discussion on the general strategy
> for schema.org or this list [1]...
> OK, if applications need to publish or consume concept-level data, we can
> point them to RDFa+SKOS. But if some here prefers to use the schema.orgnamespace, we can't really say it's wrong. Especially when better-known
> ontologies have been already integrated into Schema.org. The discussion
> should have happened for FOAF and GR. And if it happens now, still, it
> should have a broader scope than SKOS!
> I also hear the point that relying on SKOS-like data is less good than
> trying to categorize 'concepts', so that they fit various schema.orgclasses (Person, Place, etc). Again this debate has already happened, in a
> way.
> If a good, clean ontologization of thesauri, folksonomies etc was possible
> (ie., if people had resources for it), then there wouldn't be any need for
> SKOS in the first place, in the Semantic Web / Linked Data ecosystem.
> Besides the logical pitfalls of shoehorning SKOS data into OWL ontologies,
> there's the problem of raising the barrier to the use of data. A range of
> simple applications like the one Stéphanes has presented don't need
> fully-fleged ontologies, or, here, fine-grained instances of schema.org's
> 'concrete' classes.
> To come back to the naming...
> SKOS was partly designed to reflect the shift to 'traditional' term-based
> knowledge organization systems to more 'conceptual' ones (a shift
> examplified by more recent thesaurus standard). As Jean-Pierre said, the
> whole point is having string and terms masquerading as something more
> structured. Having skos:Concept mapped to a schema:Term or anything that
> prominently feature 'term' will be harmful in this respect.
> "Topic" may be counter-intuitive for all the cases when the resources are
> not used as subjects of documents.
> Using 'concept' does not seem so harmful to me, in fact. I don't see how
> the general schema.org users could possibly live and breath by early DL
> work and CommonKADS...
> 'EnumConcept' carries a meaning of ordered listing I'm not comfortable
> with. But if Enumeration has been already used without that sense in
> schema.org, it may well fly.
> If you are really desperate for another one, how about 'category'?
> Best,
> Antoine
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/**
> 0033.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0033.html>
Received on Saturday, 26 October 2013 21:08:09 UTC

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