W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Better description for 'keywords' property

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:05:09 -0700
Message-ID: <537B6F25.2040102@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org


On 5/20/14, 7:42 AM, St├ęphane Corlosquet wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the examples given by Karen fit more into a SKOS
> model where each term is backed by a URI, as opposed to ambiguous
> keywords as strings (or list of plain text keywords like we're talking
> about here with the 'keywords' property).

They DO come from a thesaurus, which MAY have a SKOS representation, but 
in the instance data itself they are usually simply strings with no link 
to the thesaurus in SKOS.

But, yes, they are from a formal thesaurus. I agree that the concept of 
"keywords" generally is that they are not structured with broader, 
narrower, etc. Keywords also can be ad hoc and uncontrolled, which is 
not the case with the library subject headings I have shown.

kc

>
> So "subject" or "subject heading" seem to fit in the SKOS / term with
> URI pattern which I'm happy with. It seems the concept of keywords in
> schema.org <http://schema.org> is more about plain text keywords.
>
> Steph.
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dan, it is my experience that library systems do NOT use the term
>     "keywords" for subject headings,[1] they use the term "subjects" or
>     some variation thereof. So if there are some that use "keywords" I
>     suspect they are in the minority, and that should not influence the
>     use in schema.org <http://schema.org>. Comma-delimited keywords are
>     very common on the Web and in software, and have become a kind of de
>     facto standard.
>
>     kc
>
>     [1] Some examples from major vendors:
>
>     LC (Voyager):
>
>     Subjects:       Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
>              United States --Politics and government --2001-2009.
>
>     OCLC:
>
>     Subjects
>
>          Snowden, Edward J., -- 1983-
>          United States. -- National Security Agency/Central Security
>     Service.
>          Leaks (Disclosure of information) -- United States.
>
>     (III):
>
>     Subject
>     Iraq War, 2003-2011
>     Intelligence service -- United States
>     United States -- Politics and government -- 2001-
>
>     etc.
>
>
>     On 5/20/14, 6:59 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>         On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:17:12PM +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>             On 17 May 2014 06:31, St├ęphane Corlosquet
>             <scorlosquet@gmail.com <mailto:scorlosquet@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                  >From previous conversations on this list, it looks like
>                 http://schema.org/keywords is meant to hold a list of
>                 comma-separated
>                 keywords, like the RDFa on this page:
>                 http://arc.lib.montana.edu/__msu-photos/item/286
>                 <http://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item/286>:
>
>                 <span property="keywords">john burke, msc, football,
>                 team</span>
>
>                 If this is correct, the description for this property, which
>                 currently reads
>                 "The keywords/tags used to describe this content", could
>                 be a bit more
>                 detailled. I suggest:
>
>                 A comma-separated list of keywords/tags used to describe
>                 this content.
>
>
>             This sounds reasonable to me. The only objections I can think of
>             involve trying to stretch this property too far, e.g.
>             phrases that
>             contain commas within them. Let's keep it simple...
>
>             Does anyone here think that this change would not be an
>             improvement?
>
>
>         More specificity in defintions is certainly an improvement, but
>         in the
>         absence of a "simple SKOS" mechanism, I know that software in the
>         library domain typically uses "keywords" (with its range of Text) to
>         express hierarchical subject headings.
>
>         (Rationale: "description" seems much more appropriate for written
>         abstracts or
>         phrase-like constructions, while "keywords/tags" is a better
>         match for
>         the typically 1-3 word subject headings used in libraries, and
>         nothing
>         else had a range of Text that seemed like any kind of a match.)
>
>         So there are currently hundreds and, as sites upgrade, will be
>         thousands
>         of library Web sites that express "keywords" like:
>
>         * keywords: Linux.
>         * keywords: Internet programming.
>         * keywords: Web sites > Design.
>         * keywords: Electronic mail systems > Security measures.
>
>         This is because we augment the existing display of subject
>         headings like
>         so:
>
>         <div property="keywords">
>            <a href="search?email">Electronic mail systems</a> &gt;  <a
>         href="search?email+security">__Security measures.</a>
>         </div>
>
>         If we get a simple SKOS mechanism in schema.org
>         <http://schema.org>, we can address that in
>         the software that doesn't adhere to the stricter
>         "comma-separated list"
>         definition that has been proposed, but please be aware that
>         there are
>         known sites that will not be adhering to that definition for
>         some time
>         to come.
>
>         Overly long story short; how about a softened definition such as:
>
>         "Keywords or tags used to describe this content. Multiple
>         entries in a
>         keywords list are typically delimited by commas."
>
>         That way, we would provide guidance to future implementations
>         without
>         invalidating existing practice and making those implementers
>         feel shamed
>         about their past decisions...
>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steph.

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 15:05:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC