Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

Ok, that's a good reason. But does EnumConcept sound like something
that's easy to use? Also, does something as abstract as a concept
sound easy to use in the context of everything else that is in
schema.org?

For me the answer is no...at least with what I know now about the proposal.

//Ed

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
>>But why would that person want to use schema.org to
> mark up their Concept/Term thing instead of SKOS.
>
> My response to that would be: Ease of use!
>
> The vast majority of people in the world have no idea semantic mark up
> exists. Let alone that they know how to use it. That's something we'd all
> like to change. To make that possible it simply much easier to have 1 source
> and 1 vocabulary for people to learn and to implement.
>
> Working with semantics is now mostly a job for people who are already
> involved in this and have a basic understanding. 99.9% of the other people
> in the world don't and I think it's up to us to create a mechanism so they
> can easily start implementing semantics as well.
> The use of different vocabularies simply isn't really doable for a novice.
> Heck it's already hard for people who are involved.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Doesn't *somebody" have to define it inline?  Otherwise, how does it
>> > exist
>> > for other people to refer to by URL?  :)
>>
>> Yes, of course :-) But why would that person want to use schema.org to
>> mark up their Concept/Term thing instead of SKOS.
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 15:45:24 UTC