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

RE: Should we adopt SKOS?

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:08:54 +0100
To: 'jean delahousse' <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Jamie Taylor <jamietaylor@google.com>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D600117FD64FA3F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Very interesting. I would encourage the group to work in that direction. After we have developed examples, I can encode the rdfa or microdata that would go with on the html pages where I am publishing the vocabularies and from where rdf would also be accessible, hence offering different ways of dereferencing terms.


From: jean delahousse [mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com]
Sent: jeudi, 10. janvier 2013 12:13
To: Young,Jeff (OR)
Cc: Dan Brickley; Wallis,Richard; public-vocabs@w3.org; Jamie Taylor
Subject: Re: Should we adopt SKOS?


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.


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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org<mailto:danbri@danbri.org>]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 1:01 PM
> To: Wallis,Richard
> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://schema.org> descriptions without going 'multi-
> namespace'. There are also already various corners of schema.org<http://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<mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com> - +33 6 01 22 48 55 - skype: jean.delahousse - blog >contenus >données >sémantique<http://jean-delahousse.net> - twitter.com/jdelahousse<http://twitter.com/jdelahousse>


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 Thursday, 10 January 2013 15:11:46 UTC

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