Re: schema.org proposal for extending Thing

On 9 May 2013 00:30, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> 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

Our equivalent to dc:subject is, roughly, the 'about' property on a
CreativeWork. For non-creative works, how would subject categories
compare to our existing type system? (Noting that RDFa Lite allows
multiple types to be written nicely, and we added 'additionalType' to
allow multi-namespace multiple typing when using the Microdata
notation).

Dan

> ---
> 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 23:33:50 UTC