Re: Should we adopt SKOS?

Hello,

I have worked on a integration of SKOS into Schema.org.

The idea is to be able to publish pages about concepts described in a
controled vocabulary and to describe the controlled vocabulary itself.
Use case can be the publication of a library controlled vocabulary as
Rameau from the French National Library (
http://data.bnf.fr/13318366/musique/) or authorities by Library of Congress
(http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2003003686.html) , or a glossary
in a web site.

I attached the draft. I would be happy to go on with this project with some
of you.

Jean


2013/1/9 Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>

> 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
> > >
> >
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
delahousse.jean@gmail.com - +33 6 01 22 48 55 - skype: jean.delahousse - blog
>contenus >données >sémantique <http://jean-delahousse.net> -
twitter.com/jdelahousse