RE: Should we adopt SKOS?

I wouldn't mind schema:Topic as an equivalent to skos:Concept. My feeling, though, is that Categories are something different and can point at Wikipedia as evidence for that:

Concept/Topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger

Category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hunger

The former is a common-sense description of hunger while the latter is an idiomatic "scheme" that binds various concepts/topics. This implies that schema:Category might be a reasonable alternative for skos:ConceptScheme, which I would request be treated as a subclass of scheme:CreativeWork.

SKOS uses skos:inScheme to relate skos:Concepts with skos:ConceptSchemes. Assuming the analysis above, I could imagine schema:inCategory as a symmetrical equivalent:

<http://schema.org/Topic> owl:equivalentClass <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> .
<http://schema.org/Category> owl:equivalentClass <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme> .
<http://schema.org/inCategory> owl:equivalentProperty <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme> .

I would also request integrating foaf:focus (or something equivalent) to help us connect "controlled vocabularies" to real entities.

<http://schema.org/focus> owl:equivalentProperty <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/focus> .

I could illustrate the use of this "focus" property using VIAF if someone needs an example of the use case.

Jeff

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 1:01 PM
> To: Wallis,Richard
> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org; Jamie Taylor
> Subject: Re: Should we adopt SKOS?
> 
> +Cc: Jamie
> 
> On 9 January 2013 16:29, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I've been thinking in this direction too (and had brief discussion with
> Jamie, cc:'d, w.r.t. Freebase's approach).
> 
> SKOS has done well and a great many controlled vocabularies in the
> thesauri, subject classification and code list tradition are expressed
> using it. SKOS handles various cases where 'class/object/property'
> models don't capture things well. I'd like to have a way of reflecting
> SKOS-oriented data into schema.org descriptions without going 'multi-
> namespace'. There are also already various corners of schema.org where
> different loose notions of 'category' are slipping in.
> 
> My current preference would be to call a new type "Topic" or perhaps
> "Category" rather than the more esoteric / vague "Concept", even while
> borrowing most structure and terminology from SKOS.
> 
> Do you have a strawman list of what you'd hope to include, from a
> bibliographic perspective?
> 
> Dan
> 
> > ~Richard
> >
> > --
> > Richard Wallis
> > Technology Evangelist
> > OCLC
> >
> >
> >
> > [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

> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 20:39:23 UTC