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 in
schema.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 in
non-schema.org vocabulary (broader etc.), most likely SKOS.
Dan