- From: Simeon Warner <simeon.warner@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:38:44 -0400
- To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
As a native Brit (which I guess makes me a royalist per this thread! Whatever happened to British English and American English as the usual terms to distinguish!) who has camped a fair bit, I would say that while we do pitch a tent the term CampingPitch sounds really odd. I think British English speakers would find IndividualCampsite more understandable. Cheers, Simeon On 7/11/18 3:56 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: > I would stick with CampingPitch, since the whole concept is mostly > relevant for Royalist English and Eurocentric campgrounds. > > Martin > --------------------------------------- > martin hepp > www: http://www.heppnetz.de/ > email: mhepp@computer.org <mailto:mhepp@computer.org> > > > Am 11.07.2018 um 09:25 schrieb Anthony Moretti > <anthony.moretti@gmail.com <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>>: > >> I can work with that. So if we keep the assumption, for the >> convenience of businesses, that all campgrounds are commercial then >> maybe we just add Campsite, and rename CampingPitch to IndividualCampsite: >> >> Place >> Accommodation >> IndividualCampsite >> Room >> HotelRoom >> Campsite >> Campground >> IndividualCampsite >> LocalBusiness >> LodgingBusiness >> Campground >> Hotel >> >> Organization >> LocalBusiness >> LodgingBusiness >> Campground >> Hotel >> >> >> Anthony >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:05 AM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com >> <mailto:mfhepp@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Yes, I see the point that the current modeling is not ideal for >> non-commercial campsites because it adds unnecessary properties. >> We could solve that by removing the LocalBusiness supertype and >> instead recommend MTE markup for commercial sites. But there is a >> trade-off: it will break the hierarchy and make markup more >> difficult for the commercial ones. The current model is not really >> problematic for most consumers of the data, it can just be a >> little inconsistent on the ontological level; but then again, this >> is no major criterion for schema.org <http://schema.org>. >> >> --------------------------------------- >> martin hepp >> www: http://www.heppnetz.de/ >> email: mhepp@computer.org <mailto:mhepp@computer.org> >> >> >> Am 11.07.2018 um 08:38 schrieb Anthony Moretti >> <anthony.moretti@gmail.com <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>>: >> >>> Yeah I understand that, but my point is that not all campgrounds >>> are businesses, i.e. not all are commercial. I definitely >>> understand the Hotel/HotelRoom difference, the parallel would be >>> Campsite/IndividualCampsite. I can fill out the hierarchy further >>> to demonstrate: >>> >>> Place >>> Accommodation >>> IndividualCampsite >>> Room >>> HotelRoom >>> Campsite >>> Campground >>> CommercialCampground >>> IndividualCampsite >>> LocalBusiness >>> LodgingBusiness >>> CommercialCampground >>> Hotel >>> >>> Organization >>> LocalBusiness >>> LodgingBusiness >>> CommercialCampground >>> Hotel >>> >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:27 PM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com >>> <mailto:mfhepp@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> No, the site is a local business, the pitch is not. The >>> relationship is similar to hotel vs hotel room. >>> >>> --------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> www: http://www.heppnetz.de/ >>> email: mhepp@computer.org <mailto:mhepp@computer.org> >>> >>> >>> Am 11.07.2018 um 08:13 schrieb Anthony Moretti >>> <anthony.moretti@gmail.com <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>>: >>> >>>> Could it be that a camping pitch is simply an individual >>>> campsite (individual in the sense 'indivisible')? And that >>>> campgrounds are a specific type of campsite, not all being >>>> businesses either? So something like: >>>> >>>> Place >>>> Accommodation >>>> IndividualCampsite >>>> Campsite >>>> Campground >>>> IndividualCampsite >>>> LocalBusiness >>>> LodgingBusiness >>>> >>>> Organization >>>> LocalBusiness >>>> LodgingBusiness >>>> >>>> >>>> Anthony >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:07 PM Thad Guidry >>>> <thadguidry@gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oops, forgot to answer your last question. >>>> >>>> No. >>>> We can't have parallel terms. a spot of fire to gather >>>> around is a spot of fire to gather around. >>>> We cannot have a Campsite Type and also have >>>> CampingPitch Type, since they equate to the same exact >>>> concept. And we already agreed they are the same thing, >>>> just different terms used in different cultures. >>>> We don't duplicate exact concepts that have different >>>> terms in different cultures. >>>> We tell folks that they can say that concepts are the >>>> same as other concepts through the use of >>>> http://www.schema.org/sameAs property and a few other >>>> ways, like duplicating "name": or "description" to give >>>> a term its many names it is known by or multiple >>>> descriptions. I.E., you can repeat properties to your >>>> hearts desire with Schema.org <http://Schema.org> >>>> >>>> -Thad >>>>
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:39:13 UTC