Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

On 16/01/2013 16:49, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> I admit that I always have trouble with the re-working of ontologies to
> new uses (like using dcterms:title for a person's name, which is legit
> but always rubs me the wrong way).

schema:name for book title redresses the balance methinks ;-)

> In the SKOS case, I just can't see an
> identifier as a skos:concept. Also, if Bowker *did* provide a URI for
> ISBNs (and I think that's being discussed but is not yet realized) then
> I see no need for the identifier structure in schema.
If Bowker did that, this approach would provide a [schema] way to mark up
their site - the place where the URI would link to.

> It is needed for 
> those instances where there is no URI. (But, Jeff, maybe that's just an
> artifact of your example?)
> 
> kc
> 
> On 1/15/13 11:07 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>> 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_ba
>> sed_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.
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:01:38 UTC