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: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:17:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv9PafvDs75y5+PqSA8oTF5OY729jvS-MMWSCiarg=3fPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Topic sounds good. Avoids the problems that Concept introduces and is also
general enough.

Any thoughts on this?

guha


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:31 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>
>>     <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 16:17:54 UTC

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