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

great, +1, let's do it! I think Topic is the one that has seen the most +1
in previous threads.

Steph.


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Steph.