Re: [ontolog-forum] Schema.org Actions - an update and call for review f

[Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 July 2013 05:11, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter,

Thanks for sending the URL of Dan Brickley's note.  I'm happy to see
that Schema.org is expanding their hierarchy to cover actions.

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jul/0090.html

Some excerpts from the note:

DB
> Schema.org Actions have been designed to integrate fully with the
> broader schema.org approach, i.e. it is syntax-agnostic (RDFa,
> Microdata, JSON-LD etc.), and draws upon schema.org's existing
> vocabulary (large collection of nouns and their properties) and
> machinery (type and property hierarchies).
>
> There is a test build of the schema.org site available for review:
>
> The basic Action type is at http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/Action
>
> The overall Action hierarchy can be browsed via
> http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/docs/full.html


Schema.org has assimilated contributions such as the GoodRelations
ontology, which was originally specified in OWL.  But they do not
use any formal logic.  As Dan says, "it is syntax-agnostic."

For that reason, Schema.org is closer to a terminology than a
formal ontology.  But the borderline is definitely not clear,
since many of the published OWL ontologies use only a small subset
of the OWL formalism, and their so-called definitions are just
English comments.

As I said many times, the most useful part of OWL is the subset
that Aristotle specified with his syllogisms.  For most users, the
much more readable Schema.org hierarchies and notations are far
easier to learn and use than the OWL versions.  Aristotle's logic
is sufficient to reason with and about Schema.org.

But the RDF purists are not happy with these developments.  From
the Wikipedia article about JSON-LD (JSON for Linked Data),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON-LD
> JSON-LD has been criticised during the standardisation process by
> Semantic Web commentators for its lack of interoperability with RDF,
> even though it is being standardised inside of the W3C RDF Working Group.

I think that's great!  My major complaint about the SW tools has been
that the RDF-XML purists ignored the requirement for interoperability
with legacy systems.  Now they're complaining that the rest of the
world is ignoring them.  They got what they deserve.

Just to note that the person (singular) that made the criticism linked in wikipedia didnt raise a "formal objection", and is no longer at DERI.

 

John

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)