Re: Mappings between schema.org and other vocabs (especially from W3C groups)

> The scripts may still scrape parts of schema.org properly, but given all
the activity in the past three years, I would not recommend to use
http://schema.rdfs.org/ for serious projects without a careful
investigation first.

Thanks for the heads-up. As far as alternative approaches:

A. Update the scrapers and scrapings
B. ?

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:07 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Note that, while this was a laudable activitity, it has not been updated
> since December, 2011 and also contains some bugs:
>
> For instance, the rdfs:isDefinedBy triples for properties link to all
> types for which a property can be applied to, but should link to the
> ontology from which the element stem:
>
>     rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/Offer>;
>     rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/TypeAndQuantityNode>;
>     rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/Demand>;
>     .
>
> The scripts may still scrape parts of schema.org properly, but given all
> the activity in the past three years, I would not recommend to use
> http://schema.rdfs.org/ for serious projects without a careful
> investigation first.
>
> Martin
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>
> On 03 Nov 2014, at 09:43, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://schema.rdfs.org/mappings.html lists:
> >
> > * DBPedia
> > * DublinCore
> > * FOAF
> > * GoodRelations
> > * SIOC
> > * BIBO
> > * WordNet
> >
> > (
> https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/blob/master/mappings.html )
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> > Aloha,
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas#Introduction
> > "In scope include collaborations on mappings, tools, extensibility and
> > cross-syntax interoperability."
> >
> > Schema.org overlaps in many ways with other vocabularies, also those
> > published under W3C namespace or currently under development in various
> > W3C groups. Few examples:
> >
> > * http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
> > * http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-activitystreams-vocabulary-20141023/
> > * http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/core/
> > * https://web-payments.org/specs/source/vocabs/payswarm.html
> >
> > I know about at least one effort of providing some mappings:
> > http://schema.rdfs.org/
> >
> > Still as for today, If I publish data online using Activity Streams 2.0,
> > which ~= schema.org/Action, search engines sponsoring schema.org will
> > not understand it.
> >
> > Maybe we could put more emphasis in WebSchemas group on coordinating
> > development of vocabularies, at least among various W3C groups, and try
> > to eventually provide official mappings to schema.org which search
> > engines could adopt in their own pace?
> >
> > We could take as a concrete use case Activity Streams 2.0 which we
> > currently work on in Social WG. As I mentioned it maps almost directly
> > to schema.org/Action
> >
> > Mahalo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wes Turner
> > https://westurner.github.io/
>
>


-- 
Wes Turner
https://westurner.github.io/