Re: Last Call for Comments ... Re: proposal for updates to http://schema.org/Event

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 29 February 2012 21:07, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 24 February 2012 16:39, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> >> > I've just posted another draft proposal in the W3C wiki,
> >> > http://www.w3.org/wiki/EventSchemaUpdate
> >> >
> >> > From the wrapper text there,
> >> >
> >> > "The proposal comes from the Google teams working with the existing
> >> > Event markup, and has been checked by the other schema.org partners
> >> > prior to publication. See PDF for full details of the proposal."
> >> >
> >> > * "Proposes 3 new properties of Event: eventStatus, previousStartDate,
> >> > previousEndDate to support canceled or rescheduled events.
> >> > * Adds eventCategory to support categorised events.
> >> > * Supports recurring events by making startDate and endDate repeated.
> >> > * Encourages use of existing 'url' property (of Thing) to link to
> >> > associated Web pages."
> >> >
> >> > Feedback as ever welcomed here or in the Wiki.
> >>
> >> OK, we didn't get a lot of discussion on this proposal. It has had
> >> some review elsewhere and is based on implementation feedback on the
> >> earlier deployed vocab so I suggest we wrap this one up quickly.
> >>
> >> Consider this a last call for comments on
> >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/EventSchemaUpdate, where btw the phrase 'Last
> >> Call' doesn't have the formality associated with official W3C
> >> standards. Rather it means, "hey, we're expecting to update schema.org
> >> based on this draft Real Soon Now and welcome your comments". Thanks
> >> for any feedback :)
> >
> >
> > my only concern with the proposal is the method proposed for matching
> > multiple startDate values to their corresponding endDate.  While the
> > schema.org vocabulary is first and foremost designed for representation
> as
> > microdata, that is by no means the only possible representation.  It's
> not
> > clear to me how much that should be a factor in defining the vocabulary.
> >  For example, when doing the JSON transformation as specified in the
> > microdata spec, you'd end up with:
> >
> > {
> >   "type": "http://schema.org/Event"
> >   "properties": {
> >     "startDate": [ "2012-2-3", "2012-2-10", "2012-2-17" ],
> >     "endDate": [ "2012-2-5", "2012-2-12", "2012-2-19" ],
> >   }
> > }
> >
> > JSON arrays are not necessarily ordered by definition, and different JSON
> > parsers behave differently in terms of maintaining order.  Even XML
> parsers
> > for that matter do not always maintain order.  Depending on what schema
> > language you use, I don't believe XML is necessarily ordered.  Does the
> > microdata spec provide any guidance in terms of element order, and
> whether
> > than can or should be relied upon to imply meaning to values?
>
> Yes - I kept my concerns quiet on this to see who else was reading,
> but I share exactly your worry here. Schema.org is deployed initially
> in Microdata, but the vocabulary is syntax-neutral and other
> representations (e.g.
> blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html ) are
> important to us. Any thoughts on a structure that would make things
> more explicit and portable?
>

Nested event items, along the lines of subEvents?  Named 'repeatedEvents'
or something similar?