- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:43:28 -0400
- To: Guha <guha@google.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnGEVGkAoHP88S9OjorcDz9vHNyqiUN596oHVwcBHDZ17g@mail.gmail.com>
Do you have pointers or references to these Knowledge Representation systems where Concept is not the same as skos:Concept? Isn't that considered an edge case? How popular are these compared to the regular use of Concept (as in SKOS). Isn't that a caveat that there "related communities" are aware of and could live with? Steph. On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote: > Good point. Maybe not SkosConcept, but something else. My fear is the word > 'Concept' is so general, that it will be mistaken. For example, there are > kinds of Knowledge Representation systems where Concept is the equivalent > of what is called 'Resource' in RDF. I absolutely want it as a universal > type, I am just worried about folks in related communities misunderstanding > it. > > guha > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Isn't that a slippery slope towards having namespaces in schema.org? >> (e.g. FoafPerson, GrProduct). What's the intention here? Keep >> http://schema.org/Concept in case we want to have a generic 'Concept' >> type later? What's making this proposal too Skos specific that it cannot >> fulfill the generic type of 'Concept'? Why not just tell people to use >> skos:Concept then (from the skos namespace)? >> >> I don't see the benefits of introducing a namespace/provenance in the >> type. I think it would make it confusing and require people to have >> knowledge about the origin vocabulary where the term came from, which goes >> agasint the goals of schema.org (might as well just use the original >> term namespace). Also, namespacing terms isn't something that has been done >> before in schema.org. >> >> Steph. >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Could we rename 'Concept', which sounds too general, to SkosConcept or >>> something like that? >>> >>> Would be great to see a worked out example. >>> >>> guha >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:08 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. >> > > -- Steph.
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 17:43:55 UTC