W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2012

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

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:40:13 -0600
Message-ID: <CAChbWaNkk51=wbOGqL0oSrtPoOH59kn6div9cmoCTcXnJzP67g@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Here's an example taken from Madonna's Confessions Tour.

Here's NBC's html page of the Confessions Tour:
http://www.nbc.com/Madonna/  ....but
note that NBC broadcasted only 1 instance of the entire tour... a specific
Concert event - filmed in London like so:
http://www.freebase.com/view/m/0j344py that actually itself was a recurring
event...or an event that repeated twice.  And it is that 2nd day Concert
event in London that the performance was recorded and broadcast on NBC.

The tricky thing here is that most folks would consider that recurring
event instance of the Confessions Tour in London to be a single event that
ran for 2 days... but in fact, it was realistically 2 separate concerts ( a
Concert that in fact recurred many times throughout the world, and
specifically recurred twice at the same venue in the same city on 2 days...
to allow many folks to attend because the venue can only hold so many folks
at one time)

Realist perspectives will play a part in what is really needed here, I
think.

But there is a need there to capture a sub-instance of a recurring event.
 Like day 2 of the London Concert to allow attendees to pick which instance
they want to attend, as given in my example.  I am just not sure how best
to frame that up with the current proposal.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 1 March 2012 02:06, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.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."
> >
> >
> > I think this last one is worth highlighting for broader discussion too.
>  As
> > I understand it, the question is about whether a) Thing/url is the
> identity
> > of the item (equivalent to itemid and conceptually akin to rel=canonical
> for
> > that specific item) or whether b) it's ok for Thing/url to point to any
> URL
> > that represents the same real-world entity, even if it's a different
> > manifestation (e.g., someone else's database record for that entity).
>
> Ah yes, I'd forgotten that nuance. I tend to read Thing/url as approx
> what we had in FOAF isPrimaryTopicOf (but more accessibly named :)
>
> But yes, it seems to have more of the flavour of (a), ie. id for the
> description/record not the thing it describes.
>
> > My understanding has been a) (equivalent to itemid), and that Thing/url
> was
> > provided mostly as a convenience for being able to markup existing anchor
> > tags without having to repeat the URL in the page markup (which itemid
> > requires).
>
> A fine motivation.
>
> > However, accepting the proposed change would effectively eliminate
> option a)
> > and mean that Thing/url was instead meant to express equivalence rather
> than
> > identity.  This would also mean that itemids (rather than Thing/url)
> would
> > have to be declared in order to link schema.org objects (meaning
> specifying
> > objects as values by reference rather than nesting them).
>
> Absorbing this, but yes I think I agree.
>
> > The alternative, as stated in the doc, is to create Thing/sameAs for
> these
> > equivalence use cases.  I personally prefer that option.
>
> In terms of the broader issue, not just Event, it feels like we'd
> benefit from a little 3 or 4 file set of test cases. Maybe describing
> a movie and actor, to show how we want things to connect up, and the
> role sameAs might play. I'm used to the role owl:sameAs plays in the
> RDF and linked data world, but not sure that's quite what you're
> looking for here. Is it a relationship between an entity and another
> description of that same entity?
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>


-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 17:40:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT