Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

Topic sounds good. Avoids the problems that Concept introduces and is also
general enough.

Any thoughts on this?

guha


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:31 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>
>>     <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
>
>