Re: SKOS proposal - labels and notes

All

I wonder if we are not confusing two discussions.

The original proposal to include SKOS in schema.org had a very focused
objective, as expressed if I remember correctly by Jean Delahousse.
Suppose I publish a SKOS vocabulary, with typically one page by concept,
how do I markup this page so that search engines understand that this is a
page describing a concept in a vocabulary, and this description uses SKOS
constructions, including skos:prefLabel etc.
e.g., how do I markup
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh87005122.htmlwith
schema.org?
For this issue, the closer the schema.org extension to original SKOS
vocabulary used by such pages, the easier the usage by vocabulary
publishers.

A somehow different issue is to answer a need to express in
schema.org"here I am about some kind of
subject/topic/category/concept" and to
indicate this concept as accurately as possible using labels, identifiers,
descriptions.

If distinction between prefLabel and other kind of labels is relevant to
the former case, it is not necessarily to the latter. There are many other
ways to categorize names outside libraries and thesaurus than into "pref"
and "alt". You might want to say that this is a "long label" for display of
full description on large screens, and that is a "short label" to be used
on portable devices. In biology you will have "scientific name" versus
"vernacular", and the first one might be also a full name or a short one.
Chemicals and various products have all sort of naming conventions for
which distinction between "pref" and "alt" are also irrelevant.
Hence for the second issue why not having something like an extremely
generic and open way to say I'm speaking about something named "foo", and
the type of this name is "bar", the type of name being defined in some
(open) enumeration (including prefLabel, altLabel, vernacular name, long
name, short name etc etc). Enabling SKOS-like markup, but not being tied to
SKOS view of the world.

Bernard



2013/10/21 Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>

> > http://schema.org/name is currently defined as 'The name of the item.'
> > (you might argue it should say 'a name' not 'the name', but setting
> > that aside for now)
>
> Yes set it aside into the 'tweaks we need to do in the next update' pile.
> > To the extent concepts have names at all, I'd
> > guess their preferred labels would all be names.
>
> Or at least close enough for a mapping to schema:name.
>
> >
> > If not, i.e. if every preferred label of a concept is also a name, and
> > if we still want to maintain an explicit notion of 'preferred label',
> > then this seems a good candidate for describing as a sub-property /
> > super-property relationship. We've used that notion already in the
> > Action design, to relate focussed action-type-specific properties to
> > the broader, vaguer properties on http://schema.org/Action. It might
> > help here too (even though schema.org term navigation doesn't offer
> > any support for sub-property links yet).
>
>
> I think this makes sense - a preferred label/name is still a name.
>
> Also in multilingual world a thing (and a concept) can not only have
> several names, it can have several preferred names - potentially one per
> language.
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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>
----------------------------------------------------------