Re: Indicating main entity / primaryTopic - proposal to use ''

On 5/20/14, 9:16 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> 2.
> If we want a more SKOS-like, bibliographic and nuanced notion of
> 'subject', I suggest we adopt something like Dublin Core's 'subject'
> to do that work.
> (DC has "The topic of the resource."/ "Typically, the subject will be
> represented using keywords, key phrases, or classification codes.
> Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary.", from
> )


I would advise against adding subject. We have two different properties 
that cover the waterfront:

about = the subject of the CreativeWork (or Thing, as proposed)
keywords = terms assigned to someThing.

Keywords do not necessarily denote "aboutness" - cf. the heavy use of 
the keywords "read" and "to read" in LibraryThing. (Not to mention the 
wonderful ambiguity of "read" in English.) cf. also Flickr "Second try" 

Therefore, denotes, well, aboutness, the subject of, 
and means simply "terms assigned to this Thing" 
without defining the nature of the relationship between the terms and 
the Thing other than "assigned to".

I agree with Simon that "about" is itself problematic, in a very human 
way, but it is also a great source of knowledge. I think that people 
inference over it at their own risk, with possible interesting returns.


> The distinction:
> if we want to say "This document is about the entity Sweden, i.e. the
> thing that is sameAs
>, we would use
>   ... i.e. this tells us the main thing that
> the page is about.
> but
> If we want to say, "This document's topic is “environmental impact of
> the decline of tin mining in Sweden in the 20th century“, we'd be
> going beyond "about" and would want a more bibliographic subject
> description, e.g. using DDC or UDC subject classification codes, SKOS
> etc.
> (fictional example, I know nothing about tin mining in Sweden)
> My proposal then is that we break out these two use cases, and target
> the 'about' more explicitly on the 'main entity' use case.
> 3. Tweak
> We should note that is a very similar
> notion to except that it allows multiple
> different entities to be referenced.
> "Indicates that the CreativeWork contains a reference to, but is not
> necessarily about a concept."
> I suggest rewording this in terms of entities/things, since we don't
> use 'concept' elsewhere:
> "Indicates that the CreativeWork contains a reference to, but is not
> necessarily about some particular thing."
> 4.
> We already have this strange-looking property. It addresses a
> different use case:
> it relates a WebPage to a part of that WebPage,
> "Indicates if this web page element is the main subject of the page."
> The wording is awkward. It should be something like "Indicates the
> main element within some Web page." since the expected type is
> WebPageElement.
> I'm not convinced that the various types we have under WebPageElement
> ("A web page element, like a table or an image") really work, but the
> important point here is that they address a different scenario. A
> WebPageElement is a piece of markup, like SiteNavigationElement,
> Table, WPAdBlock, WPFooter, WPHeader, WPSideBar. This is a different
> idea to the problem of finding the main *entity* that all this markup
> is describing.
> HTML already a <main> element, see
> "The HTML <main> element represents the main content of  the <body> of
> a document or application. The main content area consists of content
> that is directly related to, or expands upon the central topic of a
> document or the central functionality of an application. This content
> should be unique to the document, excluding any content that is
> repeated across a set of documents such as sidebars, navigation links,
> copyright information, site logos, and search forms (unless, of
> course, the document's main function is as a search form)."
> I believe most of the use cases for mainContentOfPage are better
> addressed by <main>.
> However <main> does not help us pick out a single highlighted entity:
> the main section of a Web page could still contain microdata/rdfa or
> json-ld mentioning lots of different entities.
> It is useful sometimes to know that structured data markup comes from
> footers or boilerplate rather than the <main> section of a page, and
> it is probably worth including some examples of this on the
> site.
> 5. Avoiding ratholes
> If we can please discuss this without slipping into discussion of
> I'd be happy. There
> are places in usage where we tolerate an URL for a WebPage
> being used in place of an URL that is more explictly for the
> real-world entity itself. For example in we
> write "<a href=""
> itemprop="colleague">Alice Jones</a>".
> Clarifying the use of 'about' as above could help such pages clarify
> which real world entity they are 'about'. This won't solve every issue
> around entity disambiguation, but it will improve the basic support we
> have within for stating such distinctions when we want to.
> (Sorry this was such a long mail...)
> Finally, let's also try not to get stuck on syntax issues at this
> stage. We'll have to find the best patterns in Microdata/RDFa and
> JSON-LD that we can for this, and it may sometimes be tricky. Here's
> an attempt at amending the MusicEvent example by adding a WebPage and
> 'about' - . We
> might want to discuss a reverse property that could be expressed on
> the entity rather than the page, for example.
> cheers,
> Dan

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 20:45:05 UTC