Re: Proposal – extension for Athletics

Clear enough, thanks, Tim.

I'll do the exercise of extracting the features of the athletics model that
are common for all sports. Some of them are candidates to enrich the core
vocabulary, and some others could be used to create sports.schema.org. The
particular vocabulary of athletics competitions —too specific for a broader
audience— will be created in a vocabulary outside schema.org.

Anyway, I'm already following other initiatives and groups of interest for
this future sports.schema.org.

Best,

Martin




On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:42 AM Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 17:24 Martin Alvarez-Espinar <
> martin.alvarez@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Timothy,
>>
>> This vocabulary for athletics is including too specific information about
>> track and field competitions, but there are some parts that can be reused
>> in other sports.
>>
>
> IMHO; Sounds like a great start to a bigger concept...
>
>
>> For instance, the structure of competitions is aligned with the BBC
>> Sports Ontology [1] —with application to all sports—
>>
>> Apart from competitions, dome other new classes (e.g.,
>> 'SportsGoverningBody', 'Performance', 'captain' of a 'SportsTeam', or
>> 'Athlete') could be also interesting for other sports. I'm adding also
>> information used by SportsML.
>>
>> So, now I have a doubt about the strategy of schema.org extensions. This
>> proposal would be too constrained for Athletics, so I wonder if this should
>> be under either *athletics*.schema.org or *sports*.schema.org.
>>
>
> IMHO: if we aim to support anything that might be used by 'the olympics'
> (therein, a global consideration of 'sport') whilst we'll find that many of
> the terms are indeed reusable between various sports (ie: start time, end
> time, et.al.) the comprehensive nature of various sporting concepts
> likely denotes a reasonable undertaking to consider some form of specific
> domain structure (ie: sports.schema.org).
>
> consideration could be made as to whether a predicate may exist to include
> games; which in-turn would add more to any subdomain value / support.
>
> a few other considerations;
>
> 1. in context to web-users internationally; very few people actually get
> involved with schemaorg definitions (or other ontology works).
> 2. if a term were available to include support for the game industry (ie:
> computer games, chess, etc.) i imagine their mandates would provide
> additional support to ontological development works.
> 3.  Whilst producing new subdomains for schemaorg makes sense; it's also
> useful to ensure we're not creating too many.  therefore,
> athletics.schema.org seems less than ideal.
> 4. the places people play *sport* (or *games*); how are they to be
> articulated?
> 5. different regions value sportsProfessionals in different ways, yet,
> this nonetheless would likely yield an enormous about of variables (that
> were likely formerally denoted in the sporting card collections of
> enthusiasts?)
>
> sailing is another interesting example, as it can both provide 'courses'
> and also information about waterways.  I imagine cycling / mountainBike
> trails are similar? (likely share context around things like restPoints,
> places to get Fresh water, et.al.).
>
> Ontology may also provide information about various handicap schemes, sail
> formats, boat information, etc.
>
> Fishing is likely another?
>
> Interested to consider what a subdomain may be called for acquiring all
> such terms into a singular structure, incorporating what seems to
> incorporate recreation, sports & games?
>
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ditto,
>
> Tim.
>
>> Martin
>>
>> [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport#
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:19 PM Timothy Holborn <
>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One might consider the field of sport to perhaps warrant
>>> sport.Schema.org?  (Without wanting to make it too complicated).
>>>
>>> On Fri., 26 May 2017, 3:15 am Thad Guidry, <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also the idea of an "Attempt"... that's a great reusable Type for many
>>>> Things in many Domains.  Field Trial is too narrow...see if this can be
>>>> expanded to just an "Attempt" Type where a Field Trial might be a subtype
>>>> of Attempt.
>>>>
>>>> Space-X made many attempts at reaching a goal or milestone of
>>>> successfully launching and landing a reusable rocket.
>>>>
>>>> https://w3c.github.io/opentrack-cg/spec/model/overview#field-trials
>>>>
>>>> trial(s) Athlete’s attempt in this round of trials.
>>>> Field Trial
>>>> <https://w3c.github.io/opentrack-cg/spec/model/overview#field-trials>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:07 PM Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the property of "round number" on
>>>>> https://w3c.github.io/opentrack-cg/spec/model/overview#field-trials-rounds
>>>>> "Number of the round of trials" is a confusing definition.  But I
>>>>> think someone is trying to explain that this can be used to say things like
>>>>> "1st round", "2nd round"... 1, 2, ...  You or someone might want to
>>>>> rephrase the definition so it is more clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, this definition should not use "the" but replace it with "a" ,
>>>>> so that it means an identifier for 1 round...not the set of round of trials.
>>>>> identifier Unique character string to identify the round of trials.
>>>>> Actually, I see a lot of those kinds of mistakes across many of the
>>>>> definitions in the opentrack-cg.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Thad
>>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:45 AM Martin Alvarez-Espinar <martin@w3.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Thad,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still drafting the proposal. I hope I can share it with you soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>