Re: MiniSKOS proposal: add Topic, an equivalentClass to skos:Concept, and relate schema properties to it.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> "MiniSKOS proposal for schema.org"
>
> This is a greatly minimized proposal for Schema.org <-> SKOS
> integration. I didn't make a wiki entry for it yet; maybe it's best to
> add it to http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SKOS than make a separate
> writeup?
>
> Essentially, we add one type 'Topic', we say it is an equivalent class
> to W3C skos:Concept, and then we focus on identifying properties in
> schema.org where it can be an expected type.
>

 +1 Seems like a good move!

RDFS:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext/miniskos.html
> Test build: http://sdo-wip1.appspot.com/Topic
>
> We add a range of 'Topic' to these properties: about,
> occupationalCategory, targetUrl, applicationCategory,
> applicationSubCategory, category, mentions, serviceType.
>

Off the top of my head, I think <http://schema.org/genre> should also have
a Topic range.

This would be our way of saying that (sometimes) the values of these
> properties would take links into existing controlled vocabularies,
> typically but not necessarily documented using W3C SKOS in (hopefully)
> RDFa. By doing so, we make it easier for schema.org data to use
> hierarchies of controlled codes, alternate and multilingual labels,
> and links between such vocabularies.
>
> All other information about a Topic would be expressed in
> non-schema.org vocabulary (broader etc.), most likely SKOS.
>

Sounds very sensible. I suppose at this point it would be advisable to add
the Topic type (and e.g. name alongside skos:prefLabel) to published data,
to ensure that schema.org consumers in general (e.g. the search engines)
can make sense of it?

(Of course, it would be great if, over time, consumers would also make use
of the OWL equivalencies to other schemas' classes and properties in
general, in order to leverage existing data as is.)

Cheers,
Niklas


> Dan
>
>