- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:13:03 +0000
- To: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
If we imagine hunger as an example, it is not a "ConceptList" or a "TopicList or a "TermList" or any kind of list. It's also not a "term" because people die from hunger, not the word(s) used to symbolize it. The role of "topic" is adequately addressed by schema:about. "Concept" is reasonable, but they can get messy outside of a scheme of some sort. An enumerated set of Concepts serves that schematic role. I like EnumConcept and trust that the brief description of it will make it clear that it is the Concept (e.g. hunger) that is being typed, not the scheme/enumeration of which it is a member (e.g. Wikipedia or FAST). Presumably that would be encoded in the concept's URI. Jeff Sent from my iPad > On Oct 27, 2013, at 11:33 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > Guha, it looks to me like schema has tried hard to use terms that are as close to natural language as can be, even when those turn out to be awkwardly long: isAccessoryOrSparePartFor. EnumConcept is not immediately understandable as it is, and I cannot find any other property that uses this kind of "non-real word/world" naming. > > Other suggestions (some which have been posted here) are: > > topic > concept > conceptList > topicList > termList > etc. > > I would greatly encourage the use of natural language terms. > > kc > > >> On 10/26/13 2:07 PM, Guha wrote: >> Reviving the thread ... >> >> Schema.org already uses Enumeration in the unordered sense. So, could >> you live with EnumConcept? >> >> guha >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl >> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Interesting that the topic has been stalled for one week, especially >> in the middle of a discussion on naming ;-). It looks like it will >> end like earlier SKOS threads, which also lead to discussion on the >> general strategy for schema.org <http://schema.org> or this list [1]... >> >> OK, if applications need to publish or consume concept-level data, >> we can point them to RDFa+SKOS. But if some here prefers to use the >> schema.org <http://schema.org> namespace, we can't really say it's >> wrong. Especially when better-known ontologies have been already >> integrated into Schema.org. The discussion should have happened for >> FOAF and GR. And if it happens now, still, it should have a broader >> scope than SKOS! >> >> I also hear the point that relying on SKOS-like data is less good >> than trying to categorize 'concepts', so that they fit various >> schema.org <http://schema.org> classes (Person, Place, etc). Again >> this debate has already happened, in a way. >> If a good, clean ontologization of thesauri, folksonomies etc was >> possible (ie., if people had resources for it), then there wouldn't >> be any need for SKOS in the first place, in the Semantic Web / >> Linked Data ecosystem. >> Besides the logical pitfalls of shoehorning SKOS data into OWL >> ontologies, there's the problem of raising the barrier to the use of >> data. A range of simple applications like the one Stéphanes has >> presented don't need fully-fleged ontologies, or, here, fine-grained >> instances of schema.org <http://schema.org>'s 'concrete' classes. >> >> >> To come back to the naming... >> SKOS was partly designed to reflect the shift to 'traditional' >> term-based knowledge organization systems to more 'conceptual' ones >> (a shift examplified by more recent thesaurus standard). As >> Jean-Pierre said, the whole point is having string and terms >> masquerading as something more structured. Having skos:Concept >> mapped to a schema:Term or anything that prominently feature 'term' >> will be harmful in this respect. >> >> "Topic" may be counter-intuitive for all the cases when the >> resources are not used as subjects of documents. >> >> Using 'concept' does not seem so harmful to me, in fact. I don't see >> how the general schema.org <http://schema.org> users could possibly >> live and breath by early DL work and CommonKADS... >> 'EnumConcept' carries a meaning of ordered listing I'm not >> comfortable with. But if Enumeration has been already used without >> that sense in schema.org <http://schema.org>, it may well fly. >> >> If you are really desperate for another one, how about 'category'? >> >> Best, >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/__0033.html >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0033.html> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > >
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 16:13:41 UTC