- From: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 19:00:01 -0400
- To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I haven't heard anything on this for a month. I think Dan was on vacation the week it was discussed, which may be part of the problem. Dan, could you comment? --- Raj The OGC: Making location count. http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh On Apr 10, at 1:37 PM, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote: > I had two proposals. One was category and the other was related link. sameThingAs is one type of related link -- the most important type IMHO. So I agree it does not replace the need for category. I still suggest adding that property to Thing. > > --- > Raj > > On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/9/13 3:40 PM, Raj Singh wrote: >>> Reading the sameThingAs property [1], I do think that would serve >>> mainly the same purpose. Thing/link as I described it would be more >>> general, allowing for more types of relationships between the >>> resource and the link, but honestly, I think sameThingAs covers most >>> requirements. >> >> I see a difference between the identification role of sameThingAs and Raj's proposal for a property that can be used to categorize something. This is based on my assumption that a category for the church named "Sagrada Familia" might be a link to the wikipedia category "Churches in Barcelona" or the geonames code "CH" for "church." If sameThingAs also exists as a property, then the link to dbpedia:Sagrada_familia would use that property. >> >> I wouldn't expect to see sameThingAs -> geonames:CH. >> >> Raj, have I understood your meaning of "category"? >> >> kc >> >>> >>> I don't think Thing/url could be made to work for this purpose. You >>> could do some mark up like that below, but the semantics would be too >>> vague to do anything with it. >>> >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Place"> <p >>> class="headline" itemprop="name">First Baptist Church in America</p> >>> <a href="picinside.html" itemprop="url">Here is a picture inside the >>> church</url> <a href="picback.html" itemprop="url">Here is a picture >>> of the back of the church</url> <a href="church.rdf" >>> itemprop="url">This is some RDF about the church</url> </div> >>> >>> Just the fact that they are called out as "urls" about the place >>> could tell you that there's some relationship (but the documentation >>> would have to make this clear) between the Thing and its child "url" >>> properties. Is that enough semantics for the schema.org mission? >>> Until now I didn't think it was, but maybe it is. It's a good debate >>> to have... >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ThingIdentity >>> >>> --- Raj The OGC: Making location count. >>> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh >>> >>> >>> On Apr 9, at 5:55 PM, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Raj, re your second proposal, can you clarify the difference >>>> between Thing/link, the existing Thing/url, and the object's id >>>> (microdata @itemid, RDFa @about)? Would Thing/link serve the same >>>> purpose as the proposed sameThingAs property? >>>> >>>> Thanks, Justin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Raj Singh >>>> <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote: I'm developing schema.org schema >>>> for points of interest (POIs), based on a lot of work on a >>>> conceptual model [1]. I've created an initial implementation using >>>> existing schema.org vocabulary -- particularly the Place object >>>> [2]. >>>> >>>> Two things seem to be omitted from the core schema, which are key >>>> components of our POI model. First is the idea of categorization, >>>> or freeform tagging, such as is present in the Atom category >>>> element [3]. This is a concept used in the POI model, but seems >>>> incredibly useful for any type of object, and therefore I believe >>>> category should be a property of Thing. >>>> >>>> Second is the idea of related links. The concept of identifying >>>> related resources is a widespread requirement present in most >>>> information architectures. HTML has it [4]. Atom has it [5]. >>>> Semantic technology such as RDF is practically based on it. Why not >>>> schema.org? In the POI work, we adopted the IANA link relation >>>> types [6], but we weren't totally happy with those. Doesn't it seem >>>> like schema.org's Thing needs a link property? >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model [2] >>>> http://openpois.ogcnetwork.net/pois/51f2e335-781e-4651-bfe2-d54682238919 >> [3] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#category >>>> [4] >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.3 >> [5] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#link >>>> [6] >>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml >>>> >>>> --- Raj The OGC: Making location count. >>>> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 23:00:30 UTC