- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:01:01 -0800
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Is the intention here to allow the markup of taxonomy and concept lists that are presented as Web pages? Or is the intention to add taxonomies/lists to schema.org that will be used as values? I ask because AFAIK schema.org does not yet have defined value lists, so this would be a significant change, and from the conversation so far I'm not clear about the intention. kc On 1/10/13 5:55 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > +1 > > Jeff > > *From:*Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:30 AM > *To:* public-vocabs@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Should we adopt SKOS? > > Hello all > > Already too many cooks around this pot, but here goes ... > > Whatever the choice made by schema.org <http://schema.org> on this, it > will be controversial and likely to be misinterpreted, because two many > communities have forged subtle terminology variants for this elusive ... > err ... category/type/class. > If the aim is to "adopt" SKOS, as Richard puts it, the default option > should be to adopt also SKOS terminology : Concept, ConceptScheme etc. > At least we have there a standard terminology and reference vocabulary, > widely adopted, and of which semantics have been discussed at length by > a bunch of experts in those things. > > Bernard > > 2013/1/9 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> > > > On 9 Jan 2013 20:26, "Jason Douglas" <jasondouglas@google.com > <mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>> wrote: > > > > I rescind my earlier comment in the sense that we do want everything > to have a name, description, url, etc. so it makes practical sense to > have everything inherit from Thing to get those properties. > > Yes, let's keep Thing as the class of *all* things. > > I am a little wary of Category as a name since it is more likely to be > mixed with Type; eg. Thad's description below seems also to describe our > existing typing notion. > > A category/topic in this SKOSlike sense is an identified entity > typically used to characterise the subject / topical coverage of a > CreativeWork, but could also be used to indicate skills and abilities eg > in CV/resume, JobPosting; or descriptions of learning resources. > Recipies, Software Apps, Geospatial entitied and TV shows (amongst > countless others) often get coded using domain specific, simple > hierarchical lists. > > We want to encourage the use of such coding in schema.org > <http://schema.org> markup, and it would probably be good to show some > examples of these 'externally enumerated' topic/category schemes being > published as Rdfa Lite so they can be presented using both skos and > schema.org <http://schema.org> vocab. > > Many SKOS schemes encode Thesauri; it is hard to see these items as > categories. Even as topics is a stretch. Also 'topic' has specific > meaning in Freebase, perhaps halfway between Skos 'Concept' and Rdf/rdfs > 'Class'? > > Sometimes the hardest thing with schemas is finding the right word.... > > Dan > > > > > -jason > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com > <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> I differ and think that there is a need for these 3 at the highest > level: > >> > >> Category - A grouping of Things, or Topics. > >> Thing - we have it already, and which is sometimes placed in Categories. > >> Topic - where Concept, Ideas, etc. hold and are rarely placed in > Categories. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Guha <guha@google.com > <mailto:guha@google.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Category should be a subClassOf Thing. > >>> > >>> guha > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Jason Douglas > <jasondouglas@google.com <mailto:jasondouglas@google.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org > <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> +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. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> +1 to a top-level, independent peer to Thing for this. While > Category might not be the most precise term for these, it has the > advantage of being very clearly distinct from Thing -- and I worry that > Topic and Concept aren't. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -Thad > >> http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry > > > > > > > > > -- > *Bernard Vatant* > > Vocabularies & Data Engineering > > Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 > > Skype :bernard.vatant > Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > *Mondeca***** > > 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France > > www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/> > > Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:01:36 UTC