- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 00:33:23 +0100
- To: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
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