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

Thanks Felipe.

As to the mountain example they may not be accessible to the public because
they are privately owned.

Another examples that comes to mind are some of the occupied Royal Palaces
in the UK, that are definitely tourist attractions and therefore places to
visit, but the buildings themselves are not available for public access.

However I think we might be getting sidetracked by individual detail here.

The question being: When describing if a Place (or TouristAttraction) is
accessible to the public or not, does the state a boolean can provide
(having *publicAccess* True, False, undefined) satisfy the need whilst not
breaking existing Schema.org patterns; or would two new subtypes for Place (
*PlaceWithPublicAccess*, *PlaceWithoutPublicAccess*) be better.   BTW I
think Vicki’s suggestion of *PublicPlace* would only satisfy half of the
need and infer from its typename more than just public accessibility.

My personal opinion is that the introduction of subtypes to satisfy this
particular narrow need would be overkill and would introduce more confusion
to those trying to apply it.

~Richard.


Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 25 May 2017 at 11:53, Hans Polak <info@polak.es> wrote:

> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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> wrote:
>
> Vicki Tardif Holland <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
>
>
>
>
>
>