- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:48:39 -0500
- To: jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>
- Cc: phil.barker@hw.ac.uk, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnEArnDWdvZXw_RJm9iaVCXCCU72sABrn7-ywqJ8gLA4Eg@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to addition of Topic type to fill the gap, and let those who need SKOS features use SKOS directly. Steph. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:19 AM, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>wrote: > +1 > It's clean, simple, and creates a bridge between schema.org and other > vocabularies > Jean > > > 2013/11/20 Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk> > >> >> Sounds good in general, but I think we should pause for thought before >> adding Topic as an expected type for targetUrl (in >> http://schema.org/AlignmentObject). >> >> As well as targetUrl, the Alignment object also has targetName and >> targetDescription properties, which would equate to the name and >> description of the Topic to which there is an educational alignment. >> Allowing Topic as an expected type for targetUrl might end up with us >> seeing the targetUrl being given as a complex item comprising the name, >> description and/or url. Messy. It might be preferable to add the property >> target to AlignmentObject and give it the expected type Topic. Publishers >> could then choose whether to use the target property with a value that >> comprises name, description and url, or to markup the targetName, >> targetDescription and targetUrl as direct properties of the AlignmentObject >> >> I shall ask my colleagues on the LRMI lists what they think. >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> On 19/11/13 20:22, Dan Brickley 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 inschema.org where it can be an expected type. >> >> 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. >> >> 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 innon-schema.org vocabulary (broader etc.), most likely SKOS. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> -- >> work: http://people.pjjk.net/phil >> twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/philbarker >> >> Ubuntu: not so much an operating system as a learning opportunity.http://xkcd.com/456/ >> >> > > > -- > Jean Delahousse > JDC > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > delahousse.jean@gmail.com - +33 6 01 22 48 55 http://jean-delahousse.net/ > > > > -- Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 14:49:10 UTC