Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

Just to be clear ... Schema.org 'assimilating' SKOS (or anything else) does
not gate anything. You can most certainly go ahead and

  "publish pages about concepts described in a controlled vocabulary and to
describe the controlled vocabulary itself"

today. Schema.org encourages the use of multiple vocabularies.

guha


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree, this would be a useful addition. Thanks Stéphane!
>
> Would it be too much to ask for the addition of owl:equivalentClass and
> owl:equivalentProperty links to the respective SKOS classes and properties,
> given that this is a direct import of these? It would be cumbersome to have
> that information out-of-band.
>
> (I do still find it troublesome that being "able to publish pages about
> concepts described in a controlled vocabulary and to describe the
> controlled vocabulary itself" is not considered possible until Schema.org
> assimilates SKOS. Technically it has been possible for many years. Of
> course, I do understand the cognitive strain of going anywhere else than to
> schema.org – which is why I support doing this. But for the sake of
> interoperability and varying needs, interlinking vocabularies is also
> important. And by knowing that these terms explicitly reuse SKOS,
> documentation and knowledge about that can be leveraged – and data using
> the Schema.org equivalents can be used in systems working with SKOS (if
> these also get the mappings, of course).)
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>> +Cc: Jeremy, Andreas
>>
>> On 22 September 2013 21:12, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Personally, I'm strongly in favor of this SKOS-lite proposal and would
>> like
>> > to see it in schema.org. This would be useful in particular for the
>> Drupal 8
>> > schema.org integration. In Drupal 7 we've been using skos:Concept and
>> > skos:prefLabel to annotate the taxonomy terms type and name in RDFa (see
>> > example [1]). There is currently no real equivalent in schema.org. At
>> the
>> > moment we're using the weaker schema:Thing in Drupal 8, but having a
>> > schema:Concept would be more appropriate IMO. In Drupal, taxonomy terms
>> (aka
>> > tags) are often use to tag articles or pieces of content in general.
>> We're
>> > currently using schema:about to link articles to their tags in the
>> default
>> > article content type that comes pre-installed, so having a
>> schema:Concept
>> > would be a good companion to schema:about, and more precise than
>> > schema:Thing.
>>
>> Hey, this is great - many thanks for restarting this discussion.
>>
>> I am very sympathetic to this too. We have several ad-hoc places in
>> schema.org where categories and code lists could be modeled in a more
>> structured manner (but without having a full entities/properties
>> approach). For example, JobPosting job taxonomies, LRMI educational
>> AlignmentObject codes, recipe and event categories, ... It has also
>> cropped up in recent discussion around the idea of additional rNews
>> extensions relating to http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/storyline/
>>
>> I'm not sure the direct mapping of ConceptScheme to Enumeration works
>> as intended, but that's a relatively minor point. I imagine some
>> vocabulary publishers might choose to publish using RDFa Lite + SKOS +
>> schema.org simultaneously.
>>
>> Stéphane, on the Drupal front, how much is built-in to the core now
>> versus handled by one of the countless 3rd party Drupal extensions?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> > Steph.
>> >
>> > [1] http://zbw.eu/labs/en/taxonomy/term/3
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
>> > <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've added the SKOS proposal sent by Jean Delahousse to the wiki [1]
>> and
>> >> converted it to a schema.org RDFS document [2].
>> >>
>> >> We should probably discuss this proposal further now that's it's on the
>> >> wiki.
>> >>
>> >> Steph.
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SKOS
>> >> [2]
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/raw-file/tip/schema.org/ext/skos.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi!
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10 January 2013 11:13, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hello,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I have worked on a integration of SKOS into Schema.org.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The idea is to be able to publish pages about concepts described in
>> a
>> >>> > controled vocabulary and to describe the controlled vocabulary
>> itself.
>> >>> > Use case can be the publication of a library controlled vocabulary
>> as
>> >>> > Rameau
>> >>> > from the French National Library (
>> http://data.bnf.fr/13318366/musique/)
>> >>> > or
>> >>> > authorities by Library of Congress
>> >>> > (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2003003686.html) , or a
>> >>> > glossary
>> >>> > in a web site.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I attached the draft. I would be happy to go on with this project
>> with
>> >>> > some
>> >>> > of you.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for making a concrete proposal - this is really positive! Your
>> >>> reward is that I ask something more from you ;)
>> >>>
>> >>> Would you have time to make an HTML+RDFa+RDFS version of this
>> proposal?
>> >>>
>> >>> There are some examples in our WebSchemas area of W3C Mercurial repo,
>> >>> here:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope they are almost self-explanatory. We can get you access or just
>> >>> send along HTML by mail/wiki. If you don't have time I 100%
>> >>> understand, but I'm trying to build a workflow here that doesn't
>> >>> suffer from my being a bottleneck, so hopefully this machine-readable
>> >>> proposals mechanism will help...
>> >>>
>> >>> cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Steph.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Steph.
>>
>>
>