RE: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

Frankly speaking I would not change the name of concept into something else or SkosConcept would cause less damage.

If we do this then we change “concept” into “peanuts”, then “broader” into “larger” or “narrower” into “thinner”, and why not “prefLabel” (defined in applications as a subproperty of rdfs:label) into “name” , etc.

At the end of the day, adopting SKOS in schema.org will have lost all its sense.

BTW, “concept” is actually a “class”

Jean-Pierre

From: Amanda Vizedom [mailto:amanda.vizedom@gmail.com]
Sent: lundi, 7. octobre 2013 19:55
To: Stéphane Corlosquet
Cc: Guha; Dan Brickley; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:scorlosquet@gmail.com>> wrote:
Isn't that a slippery slope towards having namespaces in schema.org<http://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<http://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<http://schema.org>.

Steph.

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Guha <guha@google.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote:
Hi!

On 10 January 2013 11:13, jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com<mailto: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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************