Re: Schema.org Sports Vocabulary Proposal

I read Gregg's point as just whether to use external enumerations for
modeling this.

Whether implementors choose to use Freebase, DBpedia, ESPN or any other
source for those enumeration references is a separate question and one that
I'm not convinced even needs to be answered by schema.org.  (And is moot if
we don't go the external enumeration route.)

On Thu Feb 13 2014 at 2:59:46 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 02/13/2014 01:04 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/12/2014 06:17 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>> Yes, but I'd be more inclined to use a sameAs relationship from a
> RoleType instance to, say, a Freebase URI to describe the role rather than
> concrete subclasses, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.
> Alternatively, this could be a string, but a URI would be best practice.
> >>>
> >>> Gregg
> >>>
> >> I'm quite surprised at your proposal to use Freebase URis to describe
> roles.   What information do you think that would be provided by the
> Freebase page?  Would these links be to Freebase roles?
> > Well, given that it's schema.org, freebase seems like a natural source
> of identifiers for much SEO, but I see this as a standing for DBpedia URIs.
> DBpedia provides a sameAs relationship to the equivalent Freebase resource,
> so it should be semantically equivalent. I'd be fine with specifying the
> enumeration space be from DBpedia instead.
> >
> > For example, <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Major_League_Baseball>
> asserts a sameAs relationship to <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/m.09p14>. Of
> course, DBpedia has the advantage of being much more readable. (However,
> this isn't the same as  <http://www.freebase.com/ns/m.09p14>, so maybe
> there are some naming/content-negotiation issues remaining?)
> >
> > Interestingly, most schema.org examples I see use various
> language-based WikiPedia pages instead of DBpedia. They're also equivalents
> in DBpedia, though.
> >
> > Gregg
> >
> >
> I don't see what representational connection there should be between
> schema.org and Freebase.  Certainly right now one of the partners in
> schema.org controls Freebase, but that doesn't turn Freebase into a
> representational silk purse.
>
> In particular, Freebase properties are tied to particular types. Take a
> look
> at birthdate for people and living organisms, for example.
>
> The situation is somewhat better for objects in Freebase, but not much
> better.
>
> peter
>
> PS:  This isn't to say that Freebase couldn't be turned into something with
> representational oomph, but I don't see that happening right now.
>
>
>