- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:47:12 -0700
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 10/27/13 9:13 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > 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. ... as per my example of "red, blue, green" -- SKOS documentation refers to: "controlled structured vocabularies". Clearly these can be used for more than just topics. We seem to be going around in circles. Perhaps those who favor the addition of SKOS-like features to schema could provide some examples so that we could have a less theoretical discussion. I agree about "hunger" but what is the context in which that would be used, and in what way does that use require "skos-ness"? kc > > "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 >> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 18:47:41 UTC