RE: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October

VIAF makes heavy use of the advanced SKOS features I mentioned. If you're looking for test cases to exercise a full-blown equivalency mapping for Schema.org, this blog post might be a useful starting point:

http://outgoing.typepad.com/outgoing/2011/04/changes-to-viafs-rdf.html

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:48 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane; Wallis,Richard
> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> If data consumers can't interpret some schema:Concept as a
> skos:Concept, while it came from skos:Concepts originally, this will be
> a very mitigated success in terms of interoperability, certainly!
> But I understand your concern. Let's just try to avoid this sub-optimal
> situation...
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> > I assume these advanced features are beyond what Schema.org will
> swallow.
> >
> > I love how much of SKOS is being incorporated into this proposal. I'm
> mainly wary of this assertion (explicit or implied):
> >
> > schema:Concept owl:equivalentClass skos:Concept .
> >
> > If the advanced SKOS features can be snuck into Schema.org, great. If
> they can't, then we need an (implied) assertion like this to preserve
> the integrity of SKOS:
> >
> > skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:01 PM
> >> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane; Wallis,Richard
> >> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> >> October
> >>
> >> Does this practically mean that you're suggesting that the
> >> schema:Concept extension should:
> >> -include foaf:focus as a possible attribute -try to enforce more
> >> constraints on labeling properties?
> >>
> >> Antoine
> >>
> >>
> >>> The difference boils down to casual vs. industrial use cases. As
> >> minimal as skos:Concept is, it still has these industrial-strength
> >> features:
> >>>
> >>> 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
> >>> 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
> >>> 	- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:52 PM
> >>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> >>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane; Wallis,Richard
> >>>> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> >>>> October
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jeff,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no time to react to the FRBR stuff, unfortunately. But I'm
> >>>> quite puzzled by this:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thus my argument that schema:Concept is more equivalent to FRBR
> >>>> Concept than it is to skos:Concept.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How come that a class that is designed to represent skos:Concepts
> >>>> would be closer to another class than it is to skos:Concept???
> >>>> Especially when skos:Concept itself is so minimally defined?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm ready to accept that the current design for schema:Concept has
> >>>> missed something. But I'd need to understand which precise part
> has
> >>>> missed its aim ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Antoine
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm not completely sure that Gordon's view of FRBR Concept aligns
> >>>> with
> >>>>> mine. I prefer the FRBR Final Report's definition of Concept:
> >>>>> http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr1.htm#3.2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	3.2.7 Concept
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	The seventh entity defined in the model is concept: an
> abstract
> >>>> notion or idea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm less comfortable with the more liberal definition Gordon
> gives
> >>>> (from FRBRer?) "a grab-bag, best defined as 'a subject which is
> not
> >> a
> >>>> Work, Expression, ...'". It's getting harder and harder to believe
> >>>> there are only 10-12 basic types of things in the universe by
> >>>> treating "Concept" as equivalent to "Miscellaneous".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A couple of other asides:
> >>>>> 	- I would argue that FRBR Concepts aren't dependent on
> authority
> >>>> control. People can recognize concepts without necessarily being
> >> able
> >>>> to agree (or even attach) authoritative labels to them.
> >>>>> 	- We should avoid the assumption that FRBR Group 2/3
> entities
> >>>> only become such when they are known to be a "subject" of a FRBR
> >> Work
> >>>> or bound to other FRBR entity by some other form of literary
> >>>> warrant (creator/publisher/etc). Gordon's point about FRSAD and
> OWL
> >>>> is
> >> useful
> >>>> and deserves further consideration. Which of the following should
> >>>> we
> >>>> believe?:
> >>>>> 		- frsad:Thema owl:equivalentClass owl:Thing .
> (Correcting
> >>>> owl:sameAs to owl:equivalentClass)
> >>>>> 		- frsad:Thema rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing . (only
> things that
> >>>> are the
> >>>>> "subject" of a FRBR Work are frsad:Themas)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's how I think about FRBR Concept. I'm not claiming that this
> >>>> hair-splitting is "correct". I'm just saying that my brain doesn't
> >>>> fall out as often when I think this way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moving on to SKOS:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One aside first: Since FRSAD go mentioned earlier, it may also be
> >>>>> worth pointing out the symmetries between
> >>>>> skos-xl:Label/skos-xl:prefLabel and
> >> frsad:Nomen/frsad:hasAppellation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now back to SKOS Concepts. Assuming that my interpretation of
> FRBR
> >>>> Concept makes sense, I would argue this:
> >>>>> 	- skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf x-frbr:Concept .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are a few reasons for this:
> >>>>> 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
> >>>>> 	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
> >>>>> 	- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would argue that these principles/patterns are essential for
> >>>>> proper
> >>>> authority control. OTOH, I suspect that these principles are
> beyond
> >>>> the limits of what Schema.org extension would accept. Thus my
> >>>> argument that schema:Concept is more equivalent to FRBR Concept
> >>>> than it is to skos:Concept.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not saying schema:Concept (based on the proposal) couldn't be
> >>>> used to define an authority control scheme, only that it will be
> >>>> idiomatic and have to be manipulated to work in aggregated
> >>>> environments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clear as mud yet? :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:58 AM
> >>>>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> >>>>>> October
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Jeff (and thanks to Gordon for the explanation!)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Interesting: we meant schema:Concept to be as close as
> >> skos:Concept.
> >>>>>> Why would it feel closer to frbr:Concept?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that the sub-classing of schema:Concept as sub-class of
> >>>>>> schema:Intangible is really open for discussion. If we realize
> >> that
> >>>>>> this sub-classing stands in the path of some FRSAD or SKOS uses,
> >>>> then
> >>>>>> let's get rid of it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Antoine
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jean,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I like where this is heading. In the experimental WorldCat.org
> >>>>>>> Linked
> >>>>>> Data so far (online RDFa and bulk N-Triples) I used skos:Concept
> >>>>>> for these situations. In my dev environment, though, I started
> >>>>>> the
> >>>> switch
> >>>>>> to schema:Intangible but wasn't entirely happy with it. This
> >>>> proposal
> >>>>>> is much more satisfying.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One issue comes to mind for discussion, though. This proposed
> >>>>>> schema:Concept feels more equivalent to FRBR Concept than it
> does
> >>>>>> to skos:Concept. The difference is subtle but real, IMO, and has
> >> to
> >>>>>> do with foaf:focus (with a range of "Thing" and inverse of
> >>>>>> madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority) being a meaningful property for
> >>>>>> the latter (skos:Concept) but not the former (FRBR Concept).
> VIAF
> >>>>>> (which doesn't currently attempt to identify FRBR Concepts) is
> >>>>>> probably the best illustration of the issues involved.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I realize that schema:Concept is destined to be a compromise,
> >>>>>>> but
> >>>> it
> >>>>>> would be nice (albeit perhaps not necessary) if this group had a
> >>>>>> clear understanding and articulation of those compromises to
> >>>> minimize
> >>>>>> confusion in industrial-strength use cases.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *From:*delahousse.jean@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> [mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com]
> >>>>>> *On Behalf Of *jean delahousse KC
> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 10:13 AM
> >>>>>>> *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group -
> 17th
> >>>>>> October
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> First I want to thank you for accepting my application to
> >>>>>>> participate
> >>>>>> to your work group.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I had been working this summer on an extension of Schema.org
> for
> >>>>>> controlled vocabularies based on Skos ontology. After BnF
> >> published
> >>>>>> Rameau in the LOD but also as web pages, one for each concept, I
> >>>>>> thought it will be useful to have an extension of Schema.org to
> >>>>>> make concepts defined in controlled vocabularies more visible by
> >>>>>> search engines.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Concepts are good candidates for TopicPages, and work as hub to
> >>>>>> access well annotated contents or others Topic Pages. They are a
> >>>>>> valuable asset for content / knowledge access from a search
> >> engine.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also it happens to find "glossary", "terminology" or "lexicon"
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>> web site. This extension of Schema.org will enable to describe
> >>>>>> those types of publication.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I took the initiative of this work but immediately ask for
> >> support
> >>>>>> and review work to Antoine Isaac and Romain Weinz. They have
> been
> >>>>>> very encouraging and already proposed corrections included in
> >>>>>> this
> >>>> version.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You'll find attached the proposal for the Skos Schema.org
> >>>> extension,
> >>>>>> we made it as simple and light as possible.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I propose, if the group agrees, to have a first discussion on
> >> this
> >>>>>> proposal inside our group before to publish it for a larger
> >>>> audience..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best regards
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Talk to you on Thursday.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jean Delahousse
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2012/10/10 Richard Wallis<richard.wallis@oclc.org
> >>>>>> <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is about time we followed up on the excellent first meeting
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>> had.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have scheduled conference call time for 11:00am EDT next
> >>>> Wednesday
> >>>>>> 17th October for us to start to talk through some of the issues
> >> and
> >>>>>> suggestions we discussed last time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You will find call in details and a provisional agenda on the
> >>>>>>> group
> >>>>>> wiki here:
> >>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20121017
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you have suggestions for the agenda, either edit the wiki or
> >>>> drop
> >>>>>> me a line.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Richard.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Richard Wallis
> >>>>>>> Technology Evangelist
> >>>>>>> OCLC
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *KnowledgeConsult, Directeur Associé*
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> blog>contenus>données>sémantique<http://jean-delahousse.net>
> -
> >>>>>> twitter.com/jdelahousse<http://twitter.com/jdelahousse>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com
> >>>>>> <mailto:jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com>    +33 (0)6-01-22-
> 48-
> >> 55
> >>>>>> skype: jean.delahousse
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 19:21:02 UTC