RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

I looked at both. They seem to be equivalent with the SKOS being cleaner and also based on only one new construct: SKOS.
Personally, I think the name attribute in the SKOS is a misleading attribute label for at text key value.
If I had to choose between name and prefLabel I would prefer the latter (though that is also misleading too but better than name).

How does this work for?
schema:identifier <urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039>;

In the SKOS part itself, is the do the inSchema and focus need to be working URIs with something behind it?
<http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
    a skos:Concept;
    schema:name "9780553479430";
    schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ;
    schema:focus <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.

Shlomo



-----Original Message-----
From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 20:05
To: Shlomo Sanders; Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

There was some discussion of Richard's Identifier Proposal during today's call, so I wanted to clarify my comments.

My observation was that the key patterns in Richard's "Identifier Proposal" mirror patterns found in SKOS. I added a section to the proposal so they can be compared side-by-side:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Proposal

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Alternate_Proposed_based_on_SKOS


If Schema.org adopts the essence of SKOS (which they should if they're serious about wanting to externalize lists), then Richard's Proposal can be modeled as a specialization of that:

schema:Identifier rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .
schema:inStandard rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:inScheme .
schema:identifies rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:focus .

I'm skeptical that Schema.org will care about explicitly modeling "identifiers for identifiers" like this, but I won't object if the group wants to try.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shlomo Sanders [mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:30 AM
> To: Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>
> "So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the
> description of a [standard] identifier."
>
> This seems convoluted and not KISS.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 22:12
> To: Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; 'Young,Jeff (OR)'; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
> Subject: Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>
> Hi Gordon,
>
> As Karen mentions, Schema.org purposely avoids the strict definition
> of domains and ranges and (as I would put it) 'hopes' to find the
> Expected Type as a property but it is also acceptable to find a string
> representation.
>
> The 'identifier' property I describe in the draft is stretching
> schema.org documentation style a little, by adding in an order of
> preference to the Expected Type.
>
> You are correct that a URI could be an identifier but the meaning I
> was hoping for in this case was that the identifier in question would
> be a [Standard] Identifier.  Hence the examples of ISSN, ISNI, etc.
>
> However I omitted the word 'standard' so as not to restrict the use to
> only identifiers produced by standards bodies.
>
> So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the
> description of a [standard] identifier.
>
> I perhaps need to work a little on my descriptive text - all
> suggestions welcome!
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
> On 06/01/2013 18:01, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 1/6/13 8:27 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
> >> Richard
> >>
> >> In the Identifier proposal, the value of the schema.identifier
> >> property includes URIs.
> >>
> >> 1. Assuming that schema.org Type is a synonym for RDF Class (or am
> >> I wrong?), what does this mean for the range of the identifier? Is
> >> it
> a
> >> literal, as in the "urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039" example, or a class, as in
> >> the <examplelib.org/identifier/12345> example, which is an
> individual
> >> member of the class?
> >
> > I believe that schema.org is purposely avoiding the strict
> > definition of domains and ranges. As it says in the documentation:
> >
> > "The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely
> pragmatic.
> > While the computational properties of systems with a single domain
> and
> > range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the
> > creation of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act
> > as the domain/range of some properties. "
> >
> > http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html

> >
> >>
> >> 2. Using the example, is it not true to say in ttl:
> >>
> >> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema.identifier
> >> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> .?
> >>
> >> If so, <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> is both a
> >> schema.Book and a schema.Identifier Š
> >
> > If the two (schema.Book and schema.Identifier) are not disjoint,
> > does it matter?
> >
> > kc
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Gordon
> >>
> >> *From:*Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]<mailto:[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]>
> >> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36
> >> *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
> >> *Cc:* Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
> >> *Subject:* Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have pulled some of our thoughts and discussions together into a
> >> couple of draft vocabulary proposals.  They can be found on the
> >> Wiki
> >> here:
> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>.
> >>
> >> These are most definitely Œdraft¹ proposals and are there as a
> >> foundation for us to work on.
> >>
> >> I am not precious about any of the Type or Property names I have
> >> used, or any of the descriptive text either.  If you have better
> >> suggestions, dive in and share!
> >>
> >> I have included some example RDF ­ I will add some RDFa and
> >> possibly other format examples later.  I am holding off for a few
> >> days on this, as I am in discussion with the W3C hosting people
> >> about adding a syntax highlighting extension added to the Wiki
> >> which will make code examples far more readable.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>       Richard.
> >>
>
>