Re: Some interesting things that show up when using a reasoner to classify schema.org

>
>
> 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.
>

Uh, that breaks with the original goals of Schema.org somewhat ??... having
a unified, agreed upon, schema (instead of everyone sorta doing their own
thing and not having agreed upon types and properties)  I wonder what that
flat bag of types would look like ?  Perhaps your thinking more that flat
bag of types should be flipped around to Predicates themselves ?  Like
something like Freebase's predicates, "abstraction of", "abstraction",
"part_of", "parts" ...
https://www.googleapis.com/freebase/v1/search?indent=true&help=predicates
but you still need basic types to hang a Predicate off of.

One of the "nice things to have" is that Schema.org PUBLICLY helps bring
agreement on Types themselves.  I would not like to throw that out.


> That does not mean we abandon the hierarchy internally; it will remain
> useful for managing the vocabulary.
>

Then you'll need to be a little more clear...do we need a looser schema ?
or only in some places ?  Remember the original goals of Schema.org and
what we were trying to solve in the 1st place.  (Freebase created higher
and higher kinded Types, but eventually you reach a plateau of sorts...
I.E. We cannot just have Thing only in that flat bag. :)


> 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
>
>
Yeah, we know reality, Martin, and you and I agree a lot on that reality in
the past :)   Hmm, perhaps I am just misinterpreting your global view of
things for the future of Schema.org  ... can you elaborate more or blog
about your flat blag of types idea ?