Re: strange identifiers in schema.org

Peter,

 Thank you for the feedback. Adding Aaron Brown, who worked on the medical
vocabulary to the thread.

Guha


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.orgat 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?
>>
>>
>
>