- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:08:53 +0000
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>, Web Schemas TF <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk>
"Am I the only one to be confused by ConceptCode and waiting for the aha moment?" You are not. I have had a number of 1:1 discussions with people who have also expressed skepticism and confusion about ConceptCode. While I still find it appealing, and it was worth exploring the idea, ... I now retract the proposal and revert MiniSKOS to use the word "Topic". We had a schema.org partners call last night and that approach seems to have general agreement there too. We will never find perfect terminology. "Topic" grows more awkward the further you get from classic bibliographic description, e.g. Job codes etc., but for key scenarios it is very natural, and I've not encountered the kind of "huh, sorry, I just don't get it!!" reaction that "ConceptCode" invokes for some people. I liked the idea of ConceptCode but Topic seems closer to rough consensus. Can we now go back to the stage where everyone was saying "great, +1, let's do it!" ? I'll update the RDFS and test builds today. We still have the outstanding issue of LRMI's targetUrl construction and a lack of candidate examples for use on the schema.org site, but otherwise I feel this is in good shape. Who can offer some simple examples? cheers, Dan
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 08:09:20 UTC