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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:47:12 -0700
Message-ID: <526D5FB0.1030507@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org

On 10/27/13 9:13 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 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.

... as per my example of "red, blue, green" -- SKOS documentation refers 
to: "controlled structured vocabularies". Clearly these can be used for 
more than just topics.

We seem to be going around in circles. Perhaps those who favor the 
addition of SKOS-like features to schema could provide some examples so 
that we could have a less theoretical discussion. I agree about "hunger" 
but what is the context in which that would be used, and in what way 
does that use require "skos-ness"?


> "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
>> -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m:
>> 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 18:47:41 UTC

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