- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:06:34 +0200
- To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVHeoy5APt8-sNBKN67aTP7POkEhQQNK60Zvh9_9ygPmtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Let me make my point differently. Maybe this is obvious for all users of schema.org, please point me to the relevant resources if it's the case. I want to say that my content (page/section) is about "Sustainable agriculture". I have a skos:Concept for this, defined in a good reference vocabulary http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh87004216 I can already use in the current state of affairs, the schema.org/aboutproperty to mark my page with this URI, right? Q1. What is the current added value (from a SEO point of view) to mark with this URI vs marking with the string "Sustainable agriculture"? And particularly what is the added value of having this URI being defined as a skos:Concept in a most authoritative Concept Scheme (LCSH), instead of any other URI such as http://dbpedia.org/page/Sustainable_agriculture http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/dictionnaire_environnement/definition/agriculture_durable.php4 Q2. What would be the added value (always from a SEO point of view) to add a schema.org type (whatever its name) to this URI indicating in the markup that this URI is indeed a skos:Concept belonging to a skos:ConceptScheme, namely LCSH (which you can discover by dereferencing the URI anyway, but do search engines follow their nose in the markup)? (Thinking about it I have the same question for the use of any reference URI, be it a skos:Concept or not. What do you gain if any by using http://id.insee.fr/geo/departement/05 instead of the string "Hautes-Alpes" in a schema.org/Place description?) Bernard 2013/10/8 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> I actually read the discussion differently. It's not so much that people >> want to express topics in the KOS sense, but that they want to refer to >> controlled lists within their data, and SKOS covers that. SKOS gives you a >> way to define a finite list with a few useful relationships. I think it's >> the mechanism of SKOS that people are looking for, more than the KOS value. >> > > I had the same interpretation. > > I know that controlled vocabularies are sometimes seen as a nuisance > outside of the library realm, but they are useful in the cases where > programmers want an enumeration. SKOS is even better than a flat > enumeration, because the vocabulary can have a hierarchy, allowing for > inheritance. > > As an example, we have been working through a proposal to support civic > services in schema.org. One of the properties of a service is > "serviceType". It would be nice to be able to encourage people to use > something like openelegibility.org's taxonomy so that we have some hope > of sorting out the services automatically. > > - Vicki > > > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com > > -- *Bernard Vatant * Vocabularies & Data Engineering Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 Skype : bernard.vatant Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://bvatant.blogspot.com> Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org -------------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** ** * 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France www.mondeca.com Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> ----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 17:07:22 UTC