Dear all,
Please read this agenda carefully, as it summarizes the key issues as I see
them -- some of which I have discussed with Dan in the last few days:
-- Source of mappings: Schema.org or Rdfs.org?
On the last call, we decided to use Rdfs.org, but Dan and MichaelH both
disagree. Dan will be on the call to discuss.
-- Issue tracking
We decided to use the Github issue tracker, but Dan suggests that we use
the issue tracker of the W3C Web Schemas Task Force and make our work more
visible in that context.
-- Documenting and publishing mappings
Antoine has started work on an RDFa representation of the mappings. Kirsten
asks how best to incorporate new proposals for mappings. Dan suggests that
we approach mappings in the context of usage patterns (application
profiles). He points out that with better online documentation of both DCMI
Metadata Terms and Schema.org, it should not be necessary to compile
complicated wiki or RDFa pages by hand and suggests that publication of
mappings could therefore be simplified. Over the past few days, it should
be noted, we have made great progress towards publishing DCMI Metadata Terms
in RDFa [1].
Tom
[1] https://raw.github.com/dublincore/website/master/build/html/dcmi-terms/index.shtml
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Tom Baker wrote:
> Schema.org Alignment Task Group telecon - 2012-05-14 11:00 EDT
>
> This agenda: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment/Telecon_20120514
> Chair: Tom
> Date: Monday, 2012-05-14
> Time: 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Dial-in: +1-218-936-4141, participant Access Code 334034
> IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#dcmi
> Mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture
> Expected: http://www.doodle.com/u3bh48x4f3p8db7r
> Tom, Antoine, Karen, Dan, Bernard, Kirsten, Corey
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Key links
> https://github.com/dcmi/schema.org - "Schema.org to Dublin Core mapping"
> https://github.com/dcmi/schema.org/issues - issues raised re: mappings
> https://github.com/dcmi/schema.org/commits/master - commit history for mappings
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment/Mappings_Details
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment/GithubIssueTracker
>
> ======================================================================
> Source of mappings: Schema.org or Rdfs.org?
>
> Bernard raised this as Issue 9: schemaorg type-properties and rdfs:domain.
> On our telecon of 5 April, resolved to use rdfs.org as the basis of our
> mappings [2]. However, Dan Brickley (of Schema.org) and Michael
> Hausenblas (of Rdfs.org) _both_ think this is the wrong decision. We
> should therefore reconsider on Monday's call. Dan will be on the call to
> discuss his reasons.
>
> [1] https://github.com/dcmi/schema.org/issues/9
> [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment/Telecon_20120405_Report
>
> -- From the 2012-04-05 agenda:
>
> Do we base our discussions on formal semantics declared at schema.rdfs.org
> (RDFS classes and properties) which interprets the not-so-formal semantics of
> schema.org with the following rules
>
> type > rdfs:Class
> type hierarchy > rdfs:subClassOf
> property > rdfs:Property
> type has property > rdfs:domain (the highest type in the type hierarchy having the property)
> property expected type > rdfs:range
>
> The owl schema at http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl has the same interpretation.
>
> The prose at http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html seems to be quite loose
> 1. each property may have one or more types as its domains. The property may
> be used for instances of any of these types.
> 2. each property may have one or more types as its ranges. The value(s)
> of the property should be instances of at least one of these types.
>
> The "may" and "should" are not as hard declarations as the formal rdfs:range
> and rdfs:domain ...
>
> ======================================================================
> Issue tracking
>
> We decided to use the Github issue tracker [6] but its use has not gained
> any traction.
>
> Dan proposes that we do our work, at least in part, in the W3C Web Schemas
> Task Force [1,2]. Specifically, we could continue to use the dc-architecture
> mailing list, but track our issues on the Web Schemas issue tracker [3] (defining
> DC as a "product" with its own thread [4]) and occasionally report on progress to the
> public-vocabs mailing list [5].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/products
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/
> [6] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment/GithubIssueTracker
>
> ======================================================================
> Documenting and publishing mappings
>
> Antoine has started work on an RDFa representation [1] of the
> mappings in [2]. We will discuss this approach and address
> Kirsten's question [3,4] of how best we should incorporate new
> mappings into the set of mappings under consideration.
>
> Off-list, Dan has suggested that we approach mappings in the context of
> usage patterns (application profiles). He points out that with better
> online documentation of both DCMI Metadata Terms and Schema.org, it should
> not be necessary to compile wiki pages such as [2] by hand and suggests that
> publication of mappings could therefore be simplified.
>
> [1] https://github.com/dcmi/schema.org/blob/master/mappings.html
> [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment/Mappings_Details
> [3] https://github.com/dcmi/schema.org/issues/3
> [4] https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1202&L=dc-architecture&F=&S=&P=14738
>
>
> --
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|
