Re: schema.org proposal for extending Thing

I suppose that's a fair summary. But I wasn't proposing going so far as the flexibility of the concept system of SKOS. I was thinking more along the lines of Dublin Core's subject [1] (my original reference was to Atom's category, which has roots in Dublin Core's subject).

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#terms-subject

---
Raj
The OGC: Making location count.
http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh


On May 8, at 7:09 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> 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 23:31:23 UTC