Re: MiniSKOS update

On 20 November 2013 15:45, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com> wrote:
> I like it, and I like the 'codeValue' and 'codingSystem' properties I now see on http://sdo-wip1.appspot.com/Topic . This allows schema.org markup for
> categories in taxonomies that don't have associated URLs - e.g.:
>
> { "@type" : "JobPosting",
>   "occupationalCategory" : { "@type" : "Topic", "name" : "Farmer",
> "codeValue" : "11-9013.00", "codingSystem" :
> "http://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy.html" }
> }

Yes :)

BTW the link above http://sdo-wip1.appspot.com/Topic  still works but
maybe not for long, as I'm trying out your suggestion below for
ConceptCode. I know Guha was concerned that Concept looked too vague
and high level, ... but this feels more grounded somehow. There seemed
to be quite a lot of support for 'Topic' which I'm wary of losing but
it doesn't hurt to try out an alternative name.

See http://sdo-wip1.appspot.com/ConceptCode

To be precise on the codeValue example above, this is currently a
slight stretch, http://schema.org/codingSystem expects Text currently,
not a link; but it is reasonable to add expected type of URL there
too. I wouldn't try to model the coding system explicitly beyond that,
though SKOS is obviously applicable, and the skos: prefix is built
into RDFa 1.1 now if people want to go that route in their own data.

Ok so I've just added expected-type: URL to codingSystem, alongside
experimental rename "Topic" -> "ConceptCode".

> My main concern is that 'Topic' seems way too broad a name for this concept.

Funny, my concern was that it was too narrow, since these aren't
always really 'topical'.

> Rather than 'Topic' or 'Concept' or 'Category', could we meet the need with
> a more concrete name like 'ConceptCode' or 'ExternalCode'? (I would have
> said Code, but that's taken.)

Hmm, ConceptCode. You might be onto something...

* It is like EnumConcept I suggested earlier but less nerdy and awkward
* It ties to SKOS Concept
* It fits the existing vocabulary we have, i.e. MedicalCode
* It emphasises that we're dealing with a level of indirection - the
thing with URI http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85003441#concept isn't
Linear Algebra, it's the Library of Congress subject heading code for
"Algebra, Linear"

What do others think? Bearable?

http://sdo-wip1.appspot.com/ConceptCode

Dan

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 16:16:06 UTC