RE: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

For me, SKOS is some sort of a level "zero" for linked data. People have vocabularies to which you can link to resolve what terms are, there definitions and also how they relate to other members. For those who might have been involved in MPEG-7 or TV-Anytime or similar effort, the link between metadata instances and vocabularies used to be "broken" requiring some extra glue to resolve termIds (ok, then for terminology :--) into something meaningful and human readable.  While moving into the semantic space, SKOS provides a clever harmonised answer to this problem.

I personally see value in having SKOS more closely associated to schema.org as it would allow me to use my SKOS vocabularies published as permanent resources.

Jean-Pierre



-----Original Message-----
From: ed.summers@gmail.com [mailto:ed.summers@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ed Summers
Sent: mardi, 8. octobre 2013 11:53
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Martin Hepp; Dan Brickley; Jarno van Driel; Thad Guidry; Dan Brickley; Guha; Stéphane Corlosquet; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

I guess I missed an earlier conversation about this, but why do folks want to import SKOS into schema.org? Can't they just use SKOS as is in their HTML using RDFa or Microdata? Is the expectation that putting it into schema.org will make it more likely to be used by both Web publishers and consumers (crawlers, etc)?

In general I agree with Guha that skos:Concept seems pretty close to Resource, or really, schema:Thing. For example, if I squint enough, schema.org starts looking like a skos:conceptScheme. One of the things I liked about schema.org initially was its concreteness. There are lots of very plain types that people can choose to use without having to think too hard about them. I personally don't think giving people machinery to start saying abstract things about concepts is going to be terribly fruitful.

//Ed

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> I would paraphrase Guha
>
> "if using enumConcept is enough to discourage a broad audience to use schema.org, then it it sad"
>
> Jean-pierre
> ________________________________________
> From: Martin Hepp [martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org]
> Sent: 08 October 2013 08:20
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: Jarno van Driel; Evain, Jean-Pierre; Thad Guidry; Dan Brickley; 
> Guha; Stéphane Corlosquet; jean delahousse; public-vocabs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion
>
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>> Can anyone here _not_ live with EnumConcept, given the various 
>> constraints and viewpoints expressed so far?
>>
>> Dan
>
> I personally would prefer TerminologyConcept or TerminologicalConcept, because the notion of Enumeration and in particular the abbreviation Enum is, IMO, a bit difficult for broad audiences.
> But I am not religious about it. EnumConcept could do.
>
> Martin
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr 
> muenchen
>
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> **************************************************
> 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
> **************************************************
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
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
**************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 13:51:55 UTC