RE: Schema addition request

Azamat, upon what did you base the statement that schema.org ontology “is not in much use with the stakeholders knowledge systems?”

From: Azamat Abdoullaev [mailto:ontopaedia@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:17 PM
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Schema addition request

The point is not about your various senses.

I am saying if it is not used as “background knowledge” for the search engines involved, then something wrong with one or both parties.

Again, the research mentioned is just studying a specific case: "a novel event extraction model that uses distant supervision to assign scores to individual event fields (event name, date, time and location) and a structural algorithm to optimally group these fields into event records"..

Schema.org initiative has been lasting about 7 years with the prospects to structure web data as a global knowledge web (graph), or "create, maintain, and promote schemas for structured data on the Internet, on web pages, in email messages, and beyond".  Besides, it has its long-existed predecessors as Microformats, FOAF, and OpenCyc.

The schema.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256451837973838&sdata=FZQOsFo7sGrZC0vyVG%2BjAknuwKY7JDtqj%2Bzxn0stp9Q%3D&reserved=0> ontology/vocabulary (with its classes, subclasses and instances) is not in much use with the stakeholders knowledge systems:
Google's Knowledge Graph
Microsoft Bing's Satori Knowledge Base
Yandex's Object Answer
Yahoo! KB technologies
LinkedIn's Knowledge Graph, etc.

Just some Schema markups (Organization and Person) are used to influence Google's Knowledge Graph results.
Meantime Schema.org is said to be sponsored by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256451837973838&sdata=ZUABjA1uEdLgQoEqPQ2IW%2B7FJIp%2BVqAZqJZ3gULxJEk%3D&reserved=0>.



On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com<mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote:
On 20 March 2017 at 15:43, Azamat Abdoullaev <ontopaedia@gmail.com<mailto:ontopaedia@gmail.com>> wrote:
> If Google/Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/etc are reluctant to use all schema.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256451837973838&sdata=FZQOsFo7sGrZC0vyVG%2BjAknuwKY7JDtqj%2Bzxn0stp9Q%3D&reserved=0>
> markup as background knowledge ..., then there is no big sense to proceed with the project (at least, with these stakeholders).

That is not what I'm saying. The point was that there are various
senses (I gave 6 broad examples, but that wasn't an attempt to be
complete) in which search engines can use this stuff, not all of which
we'll explicitly itemize. And that it is unrealistic to expect all the
specific details of search engine usage to be published on this
mailing list - if they're published it'll be on the various company
sites (or research papers etc.).

In the case of Google we are on the record e.g. in
https://research.googleblog.com/2015/12/four-years-of-schemaorg-recent-progress.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresearch.googleblog.com%2F2015%2F12%2Ffour-years-of-schemaorg-recent-progress.html&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256451837973838&sdata=59ZKq2Ansl%2FGi767e3cbWRVWrRowm%2FhUUIpJnLVR5K0%3D&reserved=0>
-> https://research.google.com/pubs/pub43796.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresearch.google.com%2Fpubs%2Fpub43796.html&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256451837973838&sdata=aODdmC0MpD0urJfw%2B%2BM4rJs83ewDcXNB88fOcMkpZ1o%3D&reserved=0> ->
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/43796.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.googleusercontent.com%2Fmedia%2Fresearch.google.com%2Fen%2F%2Fpubs%2Farchive%2F43796.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636256451837983840&sdata=x6U0u7WmBAZZd7f5mHShX4w6%2BWI53XR0CtnJ%2F7u9gw4%3D&reserved=0>
... as using schema markup as background knowledge. But we aren't
necessarily going to explicitly list everything we use schema.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=02%7C01%7Ctmarsh%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C3d387c24d8d44011503108d46fdf34fa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636256451837983840&sdata=%2FJH2Tex%2FghqpFXfiZVp5rXY%2F2YQiI2aAF5%2BiAliiXvs%3D&reserved=0>
markup for.

Dan