W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2013

RE: Should we adopt SKOS?

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 19:23:31 +0100
To: 'Richard Wallis' <richard.wallis@oclc.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D600117FD64FA39@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>

From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
Sent: mercredi, 9. janvier 2013 17:29
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Should we adopt SKOS?

Coming from the bibliographic world, specifically chairing  the Schema Bib Extend Group[1] (who are building a consensus around a group of proposals for Schema.org extensions for bibliographic resources, before submitting them to this group), I am identifying situations where being able to model things as SKOS[2] Concepts held in ConceptSchemes would make a great deal of sense.

Working with colleagues we were finding ourselves almost reinventing the SKOS model in [proposed] Schema.org vocabulary.

The introduction of External Enumerations[2] provided the ability to link to lists of things controlled by external authorities.  An approach used widely in the bibliographic and other domains - Library of Congress Subject Headings[4] for example.  Many of these authorities are modelled using SKOS (Concepts within ConceptSchemes) which introduces a consistent structured way to describe relationships (broader/narrower), language specific preferred labels, etc.

Sub-typing Intangible for Concept and ConceptScheme, it would be comparatively easy to introduce SKOS into Schema.  The benefits I believe being to add even more value to External Enumeration; providing a flexible simple-ish yet standard pattern for marking up lists of concepts and their interrelationships; provide a very easy way for already published authoritative lists of concepts to adopt Schema.org and provide valuable resources for all to connect with.

For instance VIAF[4] the Virtual International Authority File, a well used source of URIs and authoritative names for people and organisations (compiled and managed by the bibliographic community but used widely) is already in SKOS.  SKOS is also used in many other domains.

I could see this adding value without significant impact on the rest of Schema.

What do others think?


Richard Wallis
Technology Evangelist

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
[3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations
[4] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 18:24:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:52 UTC