Re: MiniSKOS update: back to "Topic" (but thanks for trying out the ConceptCode idea)

Great, +1, let's do it! :)

(I think Topic works ok for explicit code notions as well. "Being" a topic
means more than being *used* as a topic ("dealt with in a text, discourse,
or conversation; a subject", to quote a dictionary). Defining a Topic is
like defining a controlled token, equivalent to a SKOS Concept. That makes
a Topic a restricted proxy notion, commonly distinct from its focus object.
It may have a code (codeValue), and represent a formal subject heading, or
it may be a tag in a folksonomy.)

Cheers,
Niklas


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> "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
>
>