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
Date: Monday, 2012-05-14
Time: 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Dial-in: +1-218-936-4141, participant Access Code 334034
Mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture
Tom, Antoine, Karen, Dan, Bernard, Kirsten, Corey
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
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 . 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.
-- 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 ...
We decided to use the Github issue tracker  but its use has not gained
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  (defining
DC as a "product" with its own thread ) and occasionally report on progress to the
public-vocabs mailing list .
Documenting and publishing mappings
Antoine has started work on an RDFa representation  of the
mappings in . 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  by hand and suggests that
publication of mappings could therefore be simplified.