Re: Propose astro.schema.org

Thanks, Dan.

It would be easy to convert existing data into an astro.schema.org format 
(once we created it), but I guess this brings me back to a fundamental 
question: what is the purpose of schema.org?

I realize the site and the blog try to explain this, but I'm still not
entirely clear on the purpose.

Is schema.org supposed to replace OWL and other ontologies? Is it a
build-from-scratch ontology for Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/Yandex?

Or does it serve some other purpose?

More specifically, under what circumstances is it useful to create a new
vocabulary for schema.org and under what circumstances is it not?

And in what way should schema.org ontologies differ from OWL's?

As a note, I think math.schema.org is another vocabulary that schema.org
needs, but I sense I'm misunderstanding the point.

On Thu, 28 May 2015, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:18:58 +0100
> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
> To: Barry Carter <carter.barry@gmail.com>
> Cc: schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Propose astro.schema.org
> 
> On 27 May 2015 at 22:11, Barry Carter <carter.barry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose an ontology for astronomical objects such as stars,
>> planets, satellites, asteroids/planetoids, etc.
>>
>> We could either use the existing OWL astronomy ontology:
>>
>> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~eshaya/astro-onto/ontologies/astronomy.html
>>
>> or create a simplified subset.
>>
>> I'll flesh this out a bit more if there is sufficient community interest.
>
> Thanks. Are you aware of publishers who are putting relevant
> structured information into HTML sites already that would be
> candidates for adoption? Or that are doing other kinds of Web-based
> data sharing (XML/CSV/JSON etc.)...?
>
> Dan
>

Received on Thursday, 28 May 2015 23:57:30 UTC