Re: Schema.org extensions versus core

On 5/6/15 1:29 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Although facet does mean something else in the classification community:
>
> "A facet comprises "clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and 
> collectively exhaustive aspects, properties or characteristics of a 
> class or specific subject".[1]

Yes.
>
> It's not just any attribute, but is a specific selection of attributes 
> that will be applied uniformly across a domain. 

Yes, and when dealing with data [observation in reusable form] you have 
relations (sets of tuples associated with a common predicate or 
sentence-forming relation).

> Typical facets are things like matter, place, and time.

Characteristics, Attributes etc.. are actually relationship types 
(relations).

>
> I would hate to see the term used for general attributes.

We have simply show that "general attributes" too are indeed facets, 
because nothing exists in isolation. Put differently: entities exist, in 
relation to entities, in a variety of ways.

Everything perceived by an observer is an entity (resource or thing), 
related to some other entity, in some way (what relations or 
relationship types identify) .

We are all on the same page, just need to push this into a simple 
vocabulary of terms associated with a demonstrable tool. That's coming :)

Kingsley

>
> kc
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_classification#cite_note-1
>
> On 5/6/15 9:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 5/6/15 11:22 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>> I meant:
>>>
>>> Type = Entity Type
>>> Facet = Relationship/Attribute Type
>>
>> Clear and consistent with my understanding.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 06 May 2015, at 15:30, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/6/15 4:50 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>>> Dear Guha:
>>>>> Thanks for this important guideline! One question - could you please
>>>>> clarify what you mean with:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It must have at least 10m weekly users. Preferably 100m
>>>>> Does this refer to the number of times a type or facet is relevant
>>>>> for a search engine query? Or the total number of human visitors to
>>>>> the Web sites that implement the conceptual elements?
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> I am being picky about terminology use, but for the sole purpose of
>>>> communications clarity. Thus, aren't the following synonyms: Facet,
>>>> Feature, Characteristic, Aspect, Attribute, Quality? If so, the
>>>> "Facet or Type" comment above is a little confusing, hence my
>>>> question [1][2][3].
>>>>
>>>> Wondering where I am headed with this? Fundamentally, it's all about
>>>> clearly defining faceted browsing [4] which is ultimately impacted by
>>>> Schema.org term usage especially in regards to determining usage and
>>>> actual utility etc..
>>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/feature
>>>> [2] http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/facet
>>>> [3] http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/Attribute
>>>> [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2015Apr/0075.html
>>>> -- LOD list post about Faceted Browsing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06 May 2015, at 03:59, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There has been a request to clarify when something should go into
>>>>>> an extension versus when something should go into the core. Here is
>>>>>> a first stab at clarifying that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For something to be in the core, the following conditions must be
>>>>>> satisfied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. There must be at least a 1000 sites that will use it. Preferably
>>>>>> 10,000+
>>>>>> 2. It must have at least 10m weekly users. Preferably 100m
>>>>>> 3. The vocabulary must be relatively compact. Less than 20 terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, these are not hard constraints. We also recognize that
>>>>>> vocabularies evolve and more usage than planned might happen. We
>>>>>> expect terms or entire vocabularies to move from the extensions to
>>>>>> core and vice versa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a start of the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> guha
>>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
>>>>> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>>>> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>> Personal WebID: 
>>>> http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this