Re: Historical events

Hi Anthony,

Your list of potential historically specific types clearly demonstrates two
points:

   1. Almost anything can be ‘of historical significance’ From an event to
   a painting; to a person; to a vehicle; to an amusement park; etc., etc.,
   etc.

   2. Satisfying this need by introducing new specific types would require
   the creation of a vast number of new types

Fortunately there is a well established pattern, Multi Typed Entities
(MTEs), within Schema.org that can be used here that would only require the
creation of one new Type.  The name of such a type will no doubt be the
subject of much debate.  My current preference being
*HistoricallySignificant*.

Taking this approach would enable the description of any *Thing* using the
current power and flexibility of the vocabulary, then adding an additional
type to indicate that the thing has *HistoricallySignificant*-ness.  For
example.

{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": ["Person","HistoricallySignificant"],
"name": "Winston Churchill"
}

{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
“@type": ["Library","HistoricallySignificant"],
“name”: “Library of Alexandria"
}

{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
“@type": ["Event","HistoricallySignificant"],
“name”: “Signing of the Magna Carta“
}

~Richard.

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

On 18 June 2018 at 05:15, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> wrote:

> Webfeet made a good point about the need for a more general approach to
> historical significance. A pattern like the following might work:
>
> *Thing*
> *    Book*
> *        HistoricallySignificantBook*
> *    Car*
> *        HistoricallySignificantCar*
> *    Event*
> *        HistoricallySignificantEvent*
> *    HistoricallySignificantThing*
> *        HistoricallySignificantBook*
> *        HistoricallySignificantCar*
> *        HistoricallySignificantEvent*
> *        HistoricallySignificantMovie*
> *        HistoricallySignificantOrganization*
> *        HistoricallySignificantPainting*
> *        HistoricallySignificantPerson*
> *        HistoricallySignificantPlace*
> *    Movie*
> *        HistoricallySignificantMovie*
> *    Organization*
> *        HistoricallySignificantOrganization*
> *    Painting*
> *        HistoricallySignificantPainting*
> *    Person*
> *        HistoricallySignificantPerson*
> *    Place*
>         *HistoricallySignificantPlace*
>
>
> So there would be two ways you could describe an event as being
> historically significant:
>
>
>    - type: HistoricallySignificantEvent
>    - type: Event, HistoricallySignificantThing
>
> Deciding between "historically significant" or "historically important"
> could be debated too though:
>
> historically significant vs historically important
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=historically+significant%2Chistorically+important&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chistorically%20significant%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chistorically%20important%3B%2Cc0>
>
>
> Anthony
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:05 PM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
>> Allison,
>>
>> You might also just check the recently revised owl-time ontology from w3c
>> [1] which uses terminology from Allen in a formalisation of relationships
>> between time-intervals. Terms like interval, position, duration, instant
>> are suggested.
>>
>> Simon Cox
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Muri, Allison <allison.muri@usask.ca>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 17 June 2018 8:25:30 PM
>> *To:* schema.org Mailing List
>> *Subject:* Re: Historical events
>>
>> Hello again (and a very big thank you) to everyone contributing to this
>> fascinating dialogue,
>>
>> I went away and thought some more about all the comments and advice and
>> debate, and I understand the concerns/doubts raised by various people about
>> a new type HistoricalEvent or Occurrent.
>>
>> I think I now have a workable starting point from which to go away and
>> look into setting up a W3C Community Group in order to see if there is a
>> community of interest in using schema.org markup as follows to reflect
>> certain kinds of historical significance and additional specific types
>> under Event.
>>
>> https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/HistoricalEntity as a new that could
>> be used on its own, or with other types to indicate that it has historical
>> significance—there are a few examples here (thanks, webfeet for suggesting
>> something like HistoricalSignificance to apply more broadly, and to
>> Richard, for explaining the Multi Type Entity (MTE) feature). This might
>> potentially be useful for a wide range of websites, from tourism to museums
>> to literature and history. The reason for “Historical” and not “Historic”
>> is that *historic* suggests “great” or “very important” events, places,
>> artifacts etc., while *historical* suggests that the thing is associated
>> with the study or learning of, or interest in, history.
>>
>> https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/Event with some more specific types
>> (no examples yet). I’ve added period
>> <https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/period> as a property to Event to
>> see how this would work. It seems it is valuable as a property, but I will
>> get advice on whether that is a good idea or not.
>>
>> https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/Period as a new type.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Allison
>>
>> ....................................................
>> Allison Muri
>> Department of English
>>
>> Arts 418
>> University of Saskatchewan
>> Saskatoon, SK, Canada
>> ph: 306.966.5503
>>
>>