- From: Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 11:49:28 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Cc: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, "R. V. Guha" <guha@guha.com>, Shankar Natarajan <shankan@microsoft.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Tom Marsh <tmarsh@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <CAPugn7Xn2e4qaeNBTKY=4DzXTi5nKxO813Oz+gVcnEVRrc8UtA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello 2016-08-08 10:07 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>: > On 8 August 2016 at 08:08, Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr> > wrote: > > A few minor things I have spotted while looking at raw data at > > http://webschemas.org/docs/developers.html#defs following discussion at > > https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1277 : > > > > "Dentist" is still under "ProfessionalService"; reading the comment on > that > > entry, I am wondering whether this is correct or not; is should probably > be > > moved in the health extension; > > It looks like this went backwards and forwards between core and the > health-lifesci extension (several local business-related terms were > moved back to core). There was also some debate around "Dentistry" > which *is* part of the health-lifesci extension, > http://health-lifesci.webschemas.org/Dentistry > > Taking a quick look at the files: the file data/schema.rdfa (which > defines the core), has this: > > <div typeof="rdfs:Class" resource="http://schema.org/Dentist"> > <span class="h" property="rdfs:label">Dentist</span> > <span property="rdfs:comment">A dentist.</span> > <span>Subclass of: <a property="rdfs:subClassOf" > href="http://schema.org/MedicalOrganization"> > MedicalOrganization</a></span> > <span>Subclass of: <a property="rdfs:subClassOf" > href="http://schema.org/ProfessionalService"> > schema:ProfessionalService</a</span> > </div> > > the file data/ext/health-lifesci/med-health-core.rdfa has just this: > > (the extension distinguishes medical organizations from medical > businesses, a nuance I'm not 100% sure is useful) > > <div typeof="rdfs:Class" resource="http://schema.org/Dentist"> > <span>Subclass of: <a property="rdfs:subClassOf" > href="http://schema.org/MedicalBusiness">MedicalBusiness</a></span> > </div> > > ... which is our way to express that "from the perspective added by > the health-lifesci layer", the Dentist type is (also) a subtype of > MedicalBusiness. We do it this way because we don't want the core to > include references to things that are only defined in the various > extensions. > > On the question of where it most properly lives, there is no perfect > answer since life is untidy. My instinct here is that it is reasonable > for a few health-related terms to remain in core, and for the > extension to focus on "going deep" into that domain. So we also have > left e.g. /Hospital in the core as a term of general mainstream > interest, whereas fine detail like DrugCostCategory, > Gastroenterologic, RespiratoryTherapy, > MedicalObservationalStudyDesign is better off in an extension. > > So I think it stays in the core but since "ProfessionalService" has > been retired as a type, we ought to move it up into LocalBusiness and > MedicalOrganization (but still within the core). I'll go ahead and > make that change; leaving it in that type was an oversight. > OK for me. > > > "Dentist" starts with a space in the source RDFa file; > > Could you give an exact pointer? I'm not seeing the space in the most > recent files. We did make some fixes addressing this recently, and we > have a test that should ensure that term IDs and labels match: > https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/sdo-makemake/ > tests/test_graphs.py#L204 The latest file at http://webschemas.org/version/latest/schema.ttl does not contain the space. I see this was correctly fixed in https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/commit/f93cbe86fedf243f3848ab45ecbff6b9b70fec44#diff-200232fafee461b4217385c536cb093e. Maybe the data files in webschema.org were not 100% uptodate, anyway, this is correct now. > > > The labels and comments from bib extension have "@en" language, while > labels > > and comments in the core don't have a language associated; > > Good point - noted in https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1282 > > OK. > Thanks for your careful review! > > I am currently trying to make SKOS-Play (http://labs.sparna.fr/skos-play), which I develop, ingest and convert the SDO class hierarchy to SKOS, so that the various rendering options (alphabetical, hierarchical, etc.) can help spotting inconsistancies in the model (it worked in that case ;-) ). Plus, it generates nice browsable d3js-based visualizations. I hope to be able to provide more details on this soon ! Cheers Thomas > cheers, > > Dan > -- *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA* Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux *connaissances* blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin : fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
Received on Monday, 8 August 2016 21:28:17 UTC