- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 21:42:41 +0100
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "Jamie Taylor" <jamietaylor@google.com>
FYI A few years ago, we wrote a paper about the differences between categories and types / classes / concepts: Hepp, Martin; de Bruijn, Jos: GenTax: A Generic Methodology for Deriving OWL and RDF-S Ontologies from Hierarchical Classifications, Thesauri, and Inconsistent Taxonomies, Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2007), June 3-7, 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, Springer LNCS, Vol. 4519, pp. 129-144, 2007. A PDF is at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/hepp-de-bruijn-ESWC2007-gentax-CRC.pdf Martin On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > 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 >>> >> > -------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 20:43:08 UTC