- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:43:05 -0400
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: "schema. org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Hi, Martynas– On 9/29/15 11:48 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > I think PROV covers more than schema.org <http://schema.org> can ever > aim to. Yes, that's what I just said. > We cannot have a single monolithic super-ontology for all > domains. Vocabulary reuse has been one of the pillars of the Semantic > Web. I don't understand why people would want to push everything and > anything into schema.org <http://schema.org>. I explained that PROV is missing the functionality I need (or at least an obvious and simple way), and suggested that Schema.org refer to PROV for more complex use cases. I have no interest in arguing the philosophical point of vocabulary reuse and decentralized ontologies. I'm not going to proxy for someone else's fight. I simply want to accomplish a basic task, and to provide a way to people to easily discover a semantic way to express a common use case. Regards– –Doug > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 at 17:32, Doug Scheperswrote: > > Hi, Martynas– > > Yes, thanks for the suggestion! > > I'd looked at PROV, and while it's not a perfect match for my use case > (for example, there didn't seem to be an easy way to express the version > of the software), I think Schema.org should refer to that for a more > complete (if more intricate) set of provenance information. > > I've generated an issue for this [1], in case you're interested. > > [1] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/809 > > Regards– > –Doug > > On 9/29/15 5:58 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > > Doug, > > > > I think the Provenance vocabulary is what you are looking for: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#wasGeneratedBy > > > > > > Martynas > > graphityhq.com <http://graphityhq.com> > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org > <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote: > >> Hey, folks– > >> > >> I looked through the current list at Schema.org, but I couldn't > figure out > >> how to express the name and version of the software which was > used to create > >> a document. > >> > >> For example, if I create an SVG document using Adobe > Illustrator, I'm the > >> `creator`, but the `generator` is Illustrator. Currently, this > is normally > >> expressed in a comment, but I'd like to have a way to use > Schema.org terms > >> for the name and version of the generator. > >> > >> Is this currently possible? If not, could this be added? > >> > >> Thanks– > >> –Doug > >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:43:08 UTC