Re: SKOS for schema.org proposal for discussion

On 10/27/13 12:17 PM, Guha wrote:
> Topic sounds good. Avoids the problems that Concept introduces and is 
> also general enough.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

+1 for Topic .

Kingsley
>
> guha
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net 
> <mailto: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>
>         <mailto: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>
>         <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> <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> <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>
>         <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>
>         <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>
>         <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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen