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

Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:35:14 +0100
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A2626742-6FCD-4911-8290-D4E0DACB941E@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
+1

On Oct 27, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

> +1 for Topic.
> 
> There is a little bit of weirdness I mentioned in relation to the schema:about property, but I agree that Concept is too broad and EnumConcept is too artificial.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Oct 27, 2013, at 5:43 PM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/27/13 12:17 PM, Guha wrote:
>>> Topic sounds good. Avoids the problems that Concept introduces and is also general enough.
>>> 
>>> Any thoughts on this?
>> 
>> +1 for Topic . 
>> 
>> Kingsley 
>>> 
>>> 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>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Kingsley Idehen	      
>> Founder & CEO 
>> OpenLink Software     
>> Company Web: 
>> http://www.openlinksw.com
>> 
>> Personal Weblog: 
>> http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> 
>> Twitter/
>> Identi.ca
>>  handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: 
>> https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> 
>> LinkedIn Profile: 
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 08:35:52 UTC

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