W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2013

Re: LocalBusinessDepartment proposal for schema.org.

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:06:13 -0800
Message-ID: <5136A495.7020101@kcoyle.net>
To: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
CC: PublicVocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Jason,

faceting doesn't change the namespace, it mainly allows you to combine 
data at the time of instance creation. Essentially, some data "groups" 
are declared as available to all schemas. Library classifications do 
this with a select set of facets, mainly place and time, but in some 
areas of the classification there are others.

kc

On 3/5/13 5:04 PM, Jason Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 3/5/13 12:01 PM, Justin Boyan wrote:
>       We could define
>
>         "department" on Organization rather than on LocalBusiness, and
>         make the
>         new target type "Department" a subclass of Organization. The
>         problem is
>         that "Department" then wouldn't inherit the openingHours and
>         openingHoursSpecification fields from LocalBusiness.... and
>         per-department opening hours is a driving use case here. Any ideas?
>
>
>     We will continue to run into such problems if we attempt to create
>     all of the schemas through hierarchies. It might be useful to think
>     of "free-floating facets"[1] for those properties that may be usable
>     in a number of different circumstances, like locations, addresses,
>     hours, owner, time (dates of existence, creation), etc. Either that,
>     or a whole bunch of properties need to be defined at the Thing level.
>
>
> That could make it hard to find the properties you want.  Instead,
> schema.org <http://schema.org> has opted for a single global namespace
> for properties and allowing multiple domains per property (notice the
> URLs are not nested under the type's URL).  For example, Product
> <http://schema.org/Product> and CreativeWork
> <http://www.schema.org/CreativeWork> share the same "review" property.
>
>     And in the spirit of linked data, shouldn't it be possible to link
>     any two organizations without one being subordinate to the other?
>
>
>     I'm not sure that the convenience of inheritance out-weighs the
>     inconvenience of trying to fit everything into particular
>     hierarchical levels.
>
>     kc
>
>
>     [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Faceted_classification
>     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_classification>
>
>
>         Justin
>
>
>         Inline image 1
>
>
>         On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com
>         <mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com <mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>              On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Dan Brickley
>         <danbri@google.com <mailto:danbri@google.com>
>              <mailto:danbri@google.com <mailto:danbri@google.com>>> wrote:
>
>                  Here's a draft of a proposal for a LocalBusinessDepartment
>                  addition to
>         schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>. It is pretty
>         small. Basic idea
>
>                  is that some larger 'local
>                  businesses' have a variety of named departments, which
>         are worth
>                  describing as independent entities (e.g. opening hours
>         etc.).
>
>         http://www.w3.org/wiki/__WebSchemas/__LocalBusinessDepartment
>         <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/LocalBusinessDepartment>
>
>                  The suggestion is for one new type,
>         LocalBusinessDepartment,
>                  alongside
>                  a pair of properties (department / departmentOf) that
>         associate a
>                  LocalBusinessDepartment with a LocalBusiness. For
>         simplicity a
>                  LocalBusinessDepartment is also considered a
>         LocalBusiness (thus
>                  inheriting all applicable properties, our primary goal).
>
>                  I'll try to flesh out with some full markup examples,
>         but I hope
>                  this
>                  sketch is enough to get some discussion moving.
>
>
>              That seems like a useful addition, but I don't see how the
>         U-Haul &
>              USPS example apply since any given location is typically
>         relatively
>              monolithic.  I was assuming this would be something like an
>         auto
>              dealer where the Parts department closes at 5 pm, Service
>         might be
>              open slightly later until 6 pm, and Sales is open until 9 pm or
>              whenever there's a remote chance that someone will wander
>         in with
>              money.
>
>              Tom
>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 02:06:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 March 2013 02:06:43 GMT