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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:13:03 +0000
To: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB987F5A-4D7D-4D5B-B79B-BD5C847BC03C@oclc.org>
If we imagine hunger as an example, it is not a "ConceptList" or a "TopicList or a "TermList" or any kind of list. It's also not a "term" because people die from hunger, not the word(s) used to symbolize it. The role of "topic" is adequately addressed by schema:about.

"Concept" is reasonable, but they can get messy outside of a scheme of some sort. An enumerated set of Concepts serves that schematic role. I like EnumConcept and trust that the brief description of it will make it clear that it is the Concept (e.g. hunger)  that is being typed, not the scheme/enumeration of which it is a member (e.g. Wikipedia or FAST). Presumably that would be encoded in the concept's URI.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 27, 2013, at 11:33 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> Guha, it looks to me like schema has tried hard to use terms that are as close to natural language as can be, even when those turn out to be awkwardly long: isAccessoryOrSparePartFor. EnumConcept is not immediately understandable as it is, and I cannot find any other property that uses this kind of "non-real word/world" naming.
> 
> Other suggestions (some which have been posted here) are:
> 
> topic
> concept
> conceptList
> topicList
> termList
> etc.
> 
> I would greatly encourage the use of natural language terms.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
>> On 10/26/13 2:07 PM, Guha wrote:
>> Reviving the thread ...
>> 
>> Schema.org already uses Enumeration in the unordered sense. So, could
>> you live with EnumConcept?
>> 
>> guha
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>> <mailto: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 <http://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.org <http://schema.org> namespace, 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.org <http://schema.org> classes (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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 16:13:41 UTC

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