Re: schema.org growth what are the limits?

Based on the size of other 'vocabularies' (like the set of apis for
platforms), I don't believe that 1000 is a limit.

guha


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Martin Hepp <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi Bernard,
> I do currently not find a better reference than [1], but I already said on
> this list that I think the schema.org-approach will scale only up to ca.
> 1,000 types. Otherwise, navigating the type hierarchy and learning how to
> use the standard will become too burdensome, and reaching consensus will
> become too difficult.
>
> See also [2] on the assumed effects between vocabulary size and adoption.
>
> One could likely push the boundaries a little bit by adopting a strictly
> frame-based paradigm with properties officially attached only to a type or
> its subtypes (i.e. no global identifiers, resp. no common meaning for
> properties across types). This would free us from the need to find catchy,
> intuitive, yet generally valid names for properties (e.g. "effect" for a
> MedicalTreatment could mean something different than "effect" for
> WebService; all property names and types made up in this example).
>
> Then schema.org could maybe grow to a somewhat bigger, rather "flat"
> collection of types and associated properties.
>
> Personally I am convinced that 1,000 well-chosen types in combination with
> the additionalType property will be sufficient for very, very powerful
> modeling. On the other hand, I would be very hesitant to accept big bulk
> imports of types from external schemas. Let's delegate the more specific
> (and also more frequently changing, see [3]) specializations to
> Wikipedia-based services, like www.productontology.org or Wikidata.
>
> Martin
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0059.html
> [2] http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf
> [3]
> http://www.heppnetz.de/files/ConceptualDynamics-EKAW2008-CRC-final6.pdf
>
> On Jul 26, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
> > Hello all
> >
> > This is a question I has been wanting to push here for quite a while.
> > If my counting are correc, schema.org latest version has 428 classes +
> 582 properties = 1010 elements.
> > The number of candidate and potential extensions is likely to grow at a
> steady pace. Now that a handful of early adopter industries and communities
> have successfully pushed their vocabularies into schema.org, many others
> are likely to follow when they discover their obvious interest in doing so.
> And this when is now or quite soon, obviously.
> >
> > This growth is a good thing, but it will, and actually has already hit
> known limits in this kind of exercise, which once again boils down to
> represent the whole world in a unique model, and a unique namespace.
> >
> > The first point is not really an issue. The semantics of schema.org are
> "soft" enough to accomodate slight inconsistencies between various branches
> of the vocabulary, for exemple the same property used here and there with
> slightly different semantics will not really be an issue if those branches
> are unlikely to be used in the same context.
> >
> > The unique namespace is another issue. Once a name has been used to
> identify a class or a property, it can't be reused for something else. New
> extensions will have to cope with the legacy. Suppose I want to use
> http://schema.org/study for something else than a MedicalEntity and
> MedicalStudy Suppose DDI people want to introduce their concept of Study
> [1]. What will be the negotiation process?
> >
> > More generally is there a limit one could set for a manageable sensible
> size of the vocabulary? 10,000? 100,000?
> > Is there a plan of any kind to put a limit in size or in time to the
> vocabulary growth?
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> > [1] http://rdf-vocabulary.ddialliance.org/discovery
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bernard Vatant
> > Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> > Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> > Skype : bernard.vatant
> > Blog : the wheel and the hub
> > Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Mondeca
> > 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> > www.mondeca.com
> > Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Mondeca is co-chairing
> > Long-term Preservation and Governance of RDF Vocabularies
> > at Dublin Core Conference
> > <dc2013-Lisbon.jpg>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>