- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:04:14 +0100
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
- Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Dear Dick:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@att.net> wrote:
> Martin
> I enthusiastically agree that users should be able to use these vocabularies without a deep understanding.
> As a very interested and naïve user, the size of the vocabulary worries me. I find it difficult to orient myself
> and choose the right level and the right terms which are appropriate for my application.
>
> Dick McCullough
> Context Knowledge Systems
> What is your view?
I think we have only two means for keeping schema.org useable for a large audience:
1. Modularization, i.e. at least make a clear separation between
a) the meta-model and architecture of the vocabulary and
b) the domain-specific parts
but maybe even further,
and
2. Strive for a self-contained, frame-based organisation, i.e. reducing the relevance of the type hierarchy, eventually up to a point where we (publicly) just have a flat bag of types and associated properties.
That does not mean we abandon the hierarchy internally; it will remain useful for managing the vocabulary.
Currently, users and people who want to propose extensions must understand the official and inofficial parts of the meta-model and memorize the type hierarchy.
See Figure 4 in this paper:
Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant Ontologies, in: IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 90-96, January-February 2007
A PDF is at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf
Best wishes
Martin
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 21:04:55 UTC