Re: Schema.org for glossary, controled vocabulary, thesaurus... publication - which class to use ?

Hello Jeff and Evain

Thanks for your answers, and Jeff proposals.
Would you be ready to formalize together a proposal to be able to describe
concept / controlled vocabulary / glossary within Schema.org ?
I see it both as a semantic web related project, based on SKOS work, and an
SEO project as for SEO reasons, domain focus web sites often publish
glossary / dictonnary describing domain subject / concept for readers but
even more to get a better indexation by search engines.

This is also related to description of pages like wikipedia webpages where
you both find an identification of a concept and an article about the
concept.

Cheers
Jean


2012/3/21 Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>

> Here's how I would wire them up by incorporating SKOS/MADSRDF:
>
> <http://example.org/book/1> a schema:Book;
>        schema:name "Title of the book";
>        schema:about <http://example.org/thing/1> .
>
> <http://example.org/concept/1> a schema:Thing;
>        schema:name "World War II";
>        madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority <http://skosscheme1.org/concept/1>;
>        madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority <http://skosscheme2.org/concept/1>.
>
> <http://skosscheme1.org/concept/1> a skos:Concept;
>        skos:prefLabel "WWII";
>        skos:inScheme <http://skosscheme1.org/scheme> .
>
> <http://skosscheme2.org/concept/1> a skos:Concept;
>        skos:prefLabel "WW2";
>        skos:inScheme <http://skosscheme2.org/scheme> .
>
> <http://skosscheme1.org/scheme> a skos:ConceptScheme .
> <http://skosscheme2.org/scheme> a skos:ConceptScheme .
>
> The RDFa/Microdata serialization of this example would be more cryptic,
> but should be a mechanical transformation.
>
> If you wanted to avoid SKOS terms in favor of Schema.org extensions, I
> would suggest schema:Thing/Concept, schema:Thing/ConceptScheme, and
> schema:name/prefLabel. I don't see any existing schema properties that
> could serve as the basis for madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority or
> skos:inScheme, though.
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:27 AM
> > To: jean delahousse KC
> > Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Schema.org for glossary, controled vocabulary,
> > thesaurus... publication - which class to use ?
> >
> > On 21 March 2012 09:22, jean delahousse KC
> > <jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > What class of object would you use to publish a glossary (controlled
> > > vocabulary, thesaurus...) with an name and a definition for each
> > > term/concept ? I think the concept identification (uri, labels, few
> > > attributes...) should be under Intangible as the List, but today
> > under
> > > Intangible I don't really have a class to describe  concept (with
> > SKOS
> > > attributes for example).
> > > The text definition of the concept could be classified as
> > > creativework/article if it is a text giving a description of the
> > concept
> > > under a specific point of view.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advices.
> >
> > We don't really have this yet. There may be a case to reflect
> > something like a "SKOS lite" into schema.org's namespace. Or, since
> > this isn't a particularly mass-market activity (there aren't so many
> > people publishing these) maybe SKOS-in-RDFa or SKOS-in-Microdata would
> > look simple enough. Good question! I'll ask around...
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
>


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Directeur Associé, *KnowledgeConsult  *http://knowledgeconsult.com
jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com  +33 (0)6-01-22-48-55 skype:
jean.delahousse  * *twitter.com/jdelahousse