Re: Schema.org Proposal for Organization Sector

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Thad,
>
> Sounds like a good idea.
>
> How about seeking a relation to the W3C Organization Ontology [1] (as well
> as Freebase, of course, if it brings more to the table). For this specific
> matter, would either 'purpose' [2]
>

The org:purpose description is not 100% applicable as currently worded, if
it were tweaked and re-worded then it could be... this is what it says
currently: "but the nature of an organization is to have a reason for
existence and this property is a means to document that reason."

www.gibble.com sells things for Babies & Toddlers ... or they are in the
sector of "Baby & Toddler" or purpose of "Baby" and "Toddler".. whatever
the property name ends up being, it should have this kind of definition:

sector/purpose/competitive_space : " The sectors, purposes, or competitive
spaces that this person or organization primarily concerns itself with. Ex.
"Human Rights", "Pets", "Automotive Tires" "

or 'classification' [3] be applicable?
>
>
No classification property uses the idea of "class of thing" ... which is
actually harder to find well fitting SKOS Concepts, and instead you end up
with more terms like, "Human Rights Activist/Org", "Pet Store", "Automotive
Tire Store", instead of the above SKOS Concepts / Literature Subjects, with
my example definition.  Schema.org has "class of things" with Types...and
that is the anti-pattern for this proposal, where we do not want to have to
resort to creating millions of sub Types, but instead allow
sector/purpose/competitive_space kind of a property to allow further
metadata to auto-expand (much like meta: "keywords" in HTML, but requiring
a URL that defines the sector/purpose/competitive_space.  ISIC4 and NAICS
do an OK job and we have properties for those already, but ISIC4 and NAICS
often lack many of the narrower concepts that webmasters & organizations
need, so external vocabularies.

(By "seeking a relation", I (as usual) specifically mean cherry-picking
> terms from existing vocabularies, possibly relabel the imports to fit the
> scema.org naming scheme, and explicitly linking the two using RDFS and/or
> OWL in the RDF description of schema.org, to document this relation
> precisely, thus enabling humans and simpler machines alike to connect the
> dots.)
>

org:purpose is a likely candidate for that, but again, I have concerns
around the current definition of it.  How to fix ?  How to absorb while
broadening the meaning or tweaking it for Schema.org usage ?


>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
> [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#org:purpose
> [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#org:classification
>
>
-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>