Re: Schema.org v3.3 release candidate for review

If there's a replica close-by should it really be considered as closed? 
That would be confusing, IMO.

Cheers,
Hans


On 05/25/2017 10:39 AM, Felipe Santi wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Many thanks for the ongoing discussion about the change proposal to 
> TouristAttraction brought forward by the Tourism Structured Data 
> group, I am impressed and grateful by the attention that you are 
> paying to it.
>
> One example of a tourist site which is not publicly accessible is the 
> Cave of Altamira, a World Heritage Site recognized as a masterpiece of 
> Paleolithic Art for its paintings.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira It was open for years 
> to tourists until it was discovered that the paintings suffered from 
> the visitors. As you can read in the Wikipedia article, the place has 
> been closed to the public and a replica cave and interpretation centre 
> has been built in a nearby site.
> Now, examples of places like this abound in the world of tourism: 
> private palaces like the Maison de l'Amérique Latine in Paris (only 
> private visitors are allowed), castles like Sully-sur-Loire being 
> restored 
> <http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/centre-val-de-loire/loiret/chateau-sully-loire-ferme-cause-travaux-1102837.html> 
> and temporarily closed to the public, protected places like the Cave 
> of Altamira...
>
> Based on our past experience, which I try to convey in the examples 
> above, in terms of tourism we think it makes sense to give to 
> travelers information that a tourist site is not accessible, rather 
> than not publishing the site itself. If I wanted as a traveler to 
> visit the Cave of Altamira, I would be happy to find it in a search 
> engine, learn that it is closed, and that I can visit instead its 
> replica and interpretation centre.
>
> Coming back to the example of the King's Chapel in Boston, closed 
> during service hours, I would model it as being open to the public, 
> giving the opening ours, and explaining in the description that the 
> church is open except during services.
>
> Besides, I won't enter into the debate regarding the modeling choice 
> since I am not an expert in schema.org; based on Richard's guidance we 
> found within the tourism group that a boolean property looked simple 
> and good to express the reality described above. Quoting Richard,
>> If the consensus it that this maybe problematic, the domain could be 
>> narrowed back to being TouristAttraction again.
>
> Best,
> Felipe
>
>
>> Thad Guidry <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>
>> 25 May 2017 at 01:03
>> Richard,
>>
>> Then what does a consumer do with information that a tourist site is 
>> NOT publicly accessible ?  What traits are lacking on that tourist 
>> site when its not publicly accessible ?  Why is a mountain not 
>> accessible to the public, because there's a fence around it ?  What 
>> happened to all the expedition hikers that book trips ?  Now I'm 
>> really confused without more examples than a generic "mountain".
>>
>> Devil's advocate,
>> -Thad
>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>
>>
>> Richard Wallis <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
>> 25 May 2017 at 00:28
>> /*publicAccess*/
>> In the context being proposed (tourist attractions), not being 
>> accessible to the public is very different to not being open.  
>> Tourists visit buildings and look at spectacular views all the time.  
>> A mountain may not be accessible to the public, but it would be open 
>> to view all the time.  However the fact that it was also directly 
>> accessible, or not, is important information.
>>
>> To give some background, as you are aware this proposal comes from 
>> the Tourism Data <https://www.w3.org/community/tourismdata/> group, 
>> who have provided the many examples shown on the TouristAttraction 
>> <http://webschemas.org/TouristAttraction> page. As you can see from 
>> those, it is intended to make use of MTE capability to indicate that 
>> anything can also be a TouristAttraction.
>>
>> One of the expected uses of this will be by tourist information and 
>> local administration organisations describing the benefits of 
>> visiting their locality.  This may well result in the description 
>> being provided by that organisation on their tourist site, not 
>> necessarily the owners of the business or building.  Equally many 
>> tourist attractions are landForms (mountains, lookout points, 
>> beaches, etc.) which maybe publicly viewable but not publicly owned 
>> or accessible.
>>
>> Within the group, publicAccess was initially proposed with a domain 
>> of TouristAttraction where this makes most sense and is not relevant 
>> to the place being public or not.  The proposal was extended to 
>> making the domain to include Place because it was felt that this 
>> would be both relevant and useful beyond tourism.  If the consensus 
>> it that this maybe problematic, the domain could be narrowed back to 
>> being TouristAttraction again.
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>>
>> Richard Wallis
>> Founder, Data Liberate
>> http://dataliberate.com
>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>> Twitter: @rjw
>>
>>
>> R.V.Guha <mailto:guha@guha.com>
>> 24 May 2017 at 21:48
>> In the limit, how is this different from opening hours? At least 
>> conceptually?
>>
>> guha
>>
>>
>> Richard Wallis <mailto:rjw@dataliberate.com>
>> 24 May 2017 at 19:29
>> And how does one say it is not a public place?
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>>
>> On 24 May 2017, at 18:35, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com 
>> <mailto:vtardif@google.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Vicki Tardif Holland <mailto:vtardif@google.com>
>> 24 May 2017 at 18:35
>>
>> I don't follow. If they use multiple types, they can say it is a 
>> public place and a park.
>>
>> And a boolean does not allow places like King's Chapel in Boston, 
>> which is often publicly accessible, but not during church services.
>>
>> - Vicki
>>
>>
>>
>