Re: strange identifiers in schema.org

It's not so much that the documentation for Abdomen is missing, although that 
is indeed a significant problem.

It's not so much that Abdomen is an instance of PhysicalExam, although it 
doesn't make sense to say that abdominal physical exam is an instance of 
physical exam.

It's not even so much that Abdomen now appears to be a section of 
PhysicalExam, although having sections of something being instances of the 
something doesn't make sense at all.

It's not so much that the naming of the instances of PhysicalExam is so 
random, although this is indeed a significant problem.

The strangeness about using schema.org/Abdomen here is that it cannot be used 
for anything else besides this thing that is related to PhysicalExam.   
schema.org/Abdomen cannot now be used in, for example, anatomy, which would 
appear to be its natural usage.

So are there any guiding principles on the naming of types (and properties and 
items) in schema.org or it is every sub-vocabulary for itself?

peter

PS:  The JSON view doesn't provide any more information.



On 11/07/2013 12:06 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> Peter,
>
> A http://schema.org/PhysicalExam has "instances" on it, called sections, 
> which should actually be interpreted and defined as "sections of the 
> Physical Exam that are filled out by an examiner, or Doctor."
>
> Sorry for the lack of documentation on schema.org <http://schema.org> that 
> could be added to make it more understandable.  Maybe JSON views are more 
> helpful for you ? http://schema.rdfs.org/all.json
>
> /Abdomen can certainly be reused elsewhere in the world.
>
> Regarding Cardinality, Pluralization, and Capital Letters  (past discussion 
> might be very helpful for you, so...) :
>
> We have a custom search for all things schema.org <http://schema.org> 
> (discussions, etc)
>
> https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003736913799082383568:c44bi0_xxek
>
> and searching "plural" is shown in results here:
>
> http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003736913799082383568%3Ac44bi0_xxek&ie=UTF-8&q=plural&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D003736913799082383568%3Ac44bi0_xxek&ref=schema.org%2Fdocs%2Fdocuments.html&ss=2239j943233j10#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=plural&gsc.page=1
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Well, I had thought that schema.org <http://schema.org> was not the wild
>     west of the web, but instead was some sort of a walled garden where
>     things were more regimented.
>
>     Certainly it is impossible to keep all glitches out of even small
>     vocabularies like schema.org <http://schema.org> but I am certainly
>     surprised at the lack of expressed guiding principles.  I'm still hoping
>     that the promised better documentation will produce same.
>
>
>     I am perfectly happy swimming in troubled waters where one has to be
>     vigilant about just what sort of data sources and information
>     organizations one pays heed to, but I was hoping that schema.org
>     <http://schema.org> was different.
>
>     peter
>
>     PS:  I have the same sort of sentiments with respect to Freebase, by the
>     way, it's just that I've been looking at schema.org <http://schema.org>
>     more than Freebase at the moment.
>
>
>     On 11/07/2013 10:40 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
>         Hello Peter
>
>
>     [...]
>
>
>         That said, and knowing enough of you to figure how you feel when
>         looking into them, other problems you point at (lack of
>         documentation, semantic glitches etc) will always be present in this
>         scruffy-work-in-progress called "Web semantics" (read : fuzzy,
>         plural, inconsistent etc). I'm sure you will ever ever fight it with
>         all your will and strength given where you come from, but I'm afraid
>         this battle has been lost for quite a while now. As Pat Hayes told
>         me a while ago "My ivory tower has been seriously shaken those days,
>         waters of real world are slowly rising around us." Time to learn
>         swimming in troubled waters ...
>
>         Best regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>

Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 04:47:00 UTC