Re: strange identifiers in schema.org

Well, my immediate goal here is to understand a part of schema.org.   Without 
such understanding any suggestions I make aren't going to be particularly 
worthwhile.

Consider, for example, a suggestion that the way to proceed here is to use 
identifiers like http://schema.org/Medical/PhysicalExam/Abdominal.   Is this a 
reasonable identifier to use in schema.org instead of Abdomen?  I don't 
know.   Is this even an acceptable identifier to use in schema.org at all?  I 
don't know that either.  (Well, it does appear that this might be an 
acceptable identifier because it sort of fits the extension mechanism 
described in http://schema.org/docs/extension.html but it doesn't fit precisely.)

So I asked a question, and backed it up with an example that I think shows 
that an answer is needed.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider


On 11/06/2013 08:51 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2013 10:36 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com 
> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Are there any guidelines for the construction of identifiers in schema.org 
> <http://schema.org>?
> >
> > The reason that I ask is that there are some rather strange identifers, or 
> at least some rather strange uses of identifiers.
> >
> >
> > Consider, for example, the identifier Abdomen (http://schema.org/Abdomen). 
>  One might think that this refers to a part of the bodies of some animals.   
> However, Abdomen is instead an instance of PhysicalExam, along with 
> Appearance, CardiovascularExam, Eye, Neuro, and VitalSign.
> >
> > It seems to me that this is very bad design, particularly if schema.org 
> <http://schema.org> identifiers are supposed to be used by people who might 
> not have a background in the representation of knowledge.
>
> If your goal is to help improve schema.org <http://schema.org>, constructive 
> criticism would be much better than just a stream of criticism. As one of my 
> colleagues was fond of saying, "You found the problem, so you get to solve 
> the problem".
>
> So please lend your intellect towards helping solve the problem. Given a 
> vocabulary with high rates of adoption, and the realization that some less 
> than optimal design decisions have been made, what action can you take or 
> recommend to address these problems?
>

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 12:24:44 UTC