RE: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

We have the concept of scoping properties and types to domains via pre/postfixes (which is what I think Karen is encouraging in the side thread, i.e. MEDIAobject, DATAcatalog, MUSICrecording).  I'm all for that.  However, I'm also in agreement with Steph that we likely don't want to introduce scoping via well-known namespaces, as in the interest of consistency it would then be argued we should use GR and FOAF as well.

Guha - can you share a concrete example in which Concept would not work as a universal type?

From: Stéphane Corlosquet [mailto:scorlosquet@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 8:58 AM
To: Guha
Cc: Dan Brickley; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

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.