Re: Schemas for Opinions of Federal Courts

How do I unsubscribe from this e-mail list? I’ve repeatedly sent e-mails
to <public-schemaorg@w3.org> with “unsubscribe” in the subject line but I
get an automated response saying that it’s not possible to unsubscribe
from the e-mail list without being removed from the group. On the group
webpagehttps://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg/ there’s a button for
joining the group but no button for leaving the group, and no instructions
for unsubscribing from the e-mail list. I’ve tried blocking the e-mail
address but users of this list such as Stuart Robinson
<stuartro@google.com>; Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org>, and Thad Guidry
<thadguidry@gmail.com> send e-mails to each other and then cc:
<public-schemaorg@w3.org>, making it impossible to block all the e-mail
addresses. This e-mail list should be moved to a modern e-mail server such
a MailChimp or SendGrid that complies with anti-spam rules and allows
users to unsubscribe themselves.
--
Thomas David Kehoe
Casa Futura Technologies
http://www.casafuturatech.com





On 8/15/15, 6:41 PM, "Stuart Robinson" <stuartro@google.com> wrote:

>Personally, I think developing some shared core schema for this domain
>would make a lot of sense. I think the problem is that the domain is
>complicated and coming up with something general purpose that applies
>across countries and their respective legal systems is difficult. But we
>should give it a go. If it proves just too difficult to model across
>legal systems, we can come up with schema specific to a single legal
>system. For example, you might have USLegalDecision instead of
>LegalDecision.
>On Saturday, August 15, 2015, Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org> wrote:
>
>I think http://OpenJurist.org  is the epitome of a long tail search
>website.
> 
>I wonder what the group thinks they would do for something that is as
>specialized as legal opinions; what would you do if this was your
>website, would you create an extension for legal opinions? OR would you
>use an existing schema? Which one? Thad already suggested Assess and
>React Action.
> 
>If so, and you wanted it to be widely used, what do you think of these
>Properties?
> 
>Court
>Plaintiff-Appellant
>Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>Defendant-Appellee
>Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>Citation(s)
>Docket Number
>Date Argued
>Date Decided
>Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
>Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
>Attorneys for Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>Judge/Justice Hearing Matter
>Judge/Justice Delivering Opinion
>Holding
>Area of Law
>Country of Jurisdiction
>Region of Jurisdiction
>Company(ies) Mentioned
>Individual(s) Mentioned
>Cases Cited 
>Links to Cases Cited
>Cases Citing
>Links to Cases Citing
>courtAppealedFrom
>Citation of Prior Opinion
>Link to Prior Opinion
> 
>I know that some might be less ambitious at first, but I am trying to be
>complete so that we don’t waste development resources on doing half of
>the work now and then have to do the other half again later.
> 
>Is there a way to make things better/more generic so that other countries
>legal opinions could fit in this extension better as well? Is there
>anything I have missed?
> 
>Sam Deskin
>OpenJurist.org
> 
>From: Thad Guidry [mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com
><javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thadguidry@gmail.com');>]
>Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:57 AM
>To: Sam Deskin
>Cc: schema.org <http://schema.org> Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Schemas for Opinions of Federal Courts
> 
>
>On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org
><javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sam@openjurist.org');>> wrote:
>Hi Thad,
>I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.  I see why you might
>suggest Assess and React Action, but I think that I would be shoehorning
>judicial opinions into them.
>
>
>​Not at all, Actions are supposed to be fairly generic, and all
>stakeholders and current clients treat them this way.  "about" just
>becomes more important to give context to them..so make sure not to skip
>using that property...as well as "sameAs".
>
>
>​
>
>
>
>Creating a new extension might be the best option, but I am not sure that
>it would be of much benefit to search engines or the public.  I am
>ambivalent about creating a new extension if search engines will not have
>any interest in it because there is ONE or very few websites using it.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>​Someone has to start the long tail domain discussions...and it is this
>very reason that the stakeholders say "if you build it...we will gather".
> In fact, that mantra is automatic as long as your robots.txt allows
>anyone to gather your structured data.  Don't be a pessimist, is my
>advice and the stakeholders advice when we are talking about the long
>tail domains such as Law, Sub-sciences, Metalworking, Craftmaking, Water
>caves, or Amur leopards (only 20 around in the world).
>
>
>​
>
> 
>
>
> Is there a way to determine whether the search engines’ “somewhat
>interested” attitude toward a Law extension would translate into use in
>search results?
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>​See above answer: YES
>
>
>​
>
> 
>
>
> These are the Properties that I can envision:
>Court
>Plaintiff-Appellant
>Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>Defendant-Appellee
>Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>Citation(s)
>Docket Number
>Date Argued
>Date Decided
>Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
>Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
>Attorneys for Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>Judge/Justice Hearing Matter
>Judge/Justice Delivering Opinion
>Holding
>Area of Law
>Country of Jurisdiction
>Region of Jurisdiction
>Company(ies) Mentioned
>Individual(s) Mentioned
>Cases Cited
>Cases Citing
> 
>How do these sound to you?
> 
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>​Those sound fine...it is extensive however, and in places it might be
>too USA-centric...but that is ok for now, because this is your domain.
>What we will probably do is 1st round on an extension, is pick the most
>important properties (
>
>search filters
>​)​
>
> useful to folks​ globally.  It can always be further extended later or
>modified later.
>
>
> 
>
>Thad
>
>
>
>
>+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
>
>​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 17 August 2015 08:40:37 UTC