Re: schema.org proposal for extending Thing

On 9 May 2013 14:47, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I definitely see "is intellectually about" (subject) and "is type of"
> (category) as being distinct. Both can classify, but they are classifying
> using different criteria. If we want to categorize types of things (e.g.
> this is a restaurant business vs. a hair styling business) then I would not
> want those statements mixed with subject "about" statements. I believe that
> schema.org/about is appropriately located in the schema.org/CreativeWork
> class.

+1

Here's an example of non-intellectual categorization, that relates to
the external enumerations discussion.

http://schema.org/PlaceOfWorship lists just

BuddhistTemple
CatholicChurch
Church
HinduTemple
Mosque
Synagogue

...though of course there are many many more ways of categorizing
places of worship than that. Some of those lists (e.g. of religious
groups, movements; present day and historical) might be useful
components that could theoretically be shared by intellectual subject
classification systems.

For answering a 'what kind of building is this?' question, it seems
natural to aspire to 'plugging in' Wikipedia/Wikidata and other
sources, so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_(Latter_Day_Saints)
used as a type could provide a more detailed sub-type of
PlaceOfWorship. And it seems more appropriate for those giant (often
subtle, sometimes controversial) lists to be maintained at Wikipedia
and elsewhere, hence
blog.schema.org/2012/05/schemaorg-markup-for-external-lists.html

Meanwhile someone might be cataloguing a phd thesis, youtube video or
ScholarlyArticle on - say - traditions of Feminist thought in the
Mormon community.

It seems that we would want some commonality, ... that the relevant
identifiers for the religion should be linked somehow. But that it is
also useful to have the 'about' property reserved for the
intellectual-content-oriented uses associated with CreativeWork.

Dan

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 14:06:59 UTC