Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

Perhaps the most dramatic case occurs in biological ontologies; some
bioontology communities use 'concept' to mean 'class'.  I've seen this
create serious communication and methodology problems when folks whose only
ontology training or experience comes from such communities join ontology /
semantic technology projects in other domains without managerial attention
to this and other community-specialized practices.

Slightly old reference, but easy to hand:
http://journals2005.pasteur.ac.ir/NB/23(9)/1095%20-%201098.pdf


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>