- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 00:09:45 +0100
- To: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 9 May 2013 00:00, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote: > 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? This one did escape me. Is this a fair summary: 1. there is support for sameThingAs (or 'sameAs'; I'm more and more convinced to go with OWL-compatible naming). 2. there is interest in a categorisation mechanism that operates at a different level to schema.org's built-in typing system; something close to W3C SKOS? Dan > --- > 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 23:10:13 UTC