Re: ISSUE-17: schema.org has NGO, EducationalOrganization, SportsTeam, GovernmentOrganization but not Labo[u]r Union

United together.  Joined together.
 On May 9, 2013 8:18 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 9 May 2013 13:56, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kendall,
> >>
> >> I recorded this issue last year after you pointed out that schema.org
> >> has various organizational types, but nothing for the class of things
> >> that are 'Labour Unions'. This is a flaw I'd like to fix.
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/17
> >> https://twitter.com/kendall/status/210422142620286976
> >>
> >> I come from an English speaking country where people say "trade union"
> >> rather than "labo[u]r union"; I don't have a good intuition for how
> >> odd "trade union" might sound elsewhere.
> >
> > Trade union is used most often on the Web, according to Google.
> >
> > It's not the usual term in the US, but people (who care) certainly know
> what
> > it means.
> >
> > However, if schema.org prefers US English, then "labor union" seems the
> > obvious choice. It's by far the dominant form in the US. (Not that I
> think
> > that's a good reason to choose it; but I don't set the rules Schema.org
> > plays by, etc.)
> >
> >>
> >> Do you (or others here) have
> >> any thoughts or preferences on a good and intuitive name for this
> >> concept? Schema.org uses US English when a choice is needed, but it's
> >> good to aim at terms that are the same in as many variants of English
> >> as possible.
> >
> >
> > Other possibilities:
> >
> > "workers union" or just "union".
>
> Schema.org has the challenge of trying to squeeze a lot of diverse
> domains into a flat namespace. For that reason I lean more towards
> WorkersUnion than plain Union. Searching using the phrase "workers
> union" finds a lot of relevant pages, it is fairly self-descriptive
> and not ambiguous. I can't think of another sense of Union we'd want a
> type for right now, but it's a very general word (an SQL ontology?).
>
> (BTW I noticed yesterday we have the (Organization) ArtGallery and we
> have (WebPage) ImageGallery. Both make sense in their context but
> presented together look a little odd.)
>
> >> I'm not sure if there are subtle substantive differences between
> >> 'labor union' and 'trade union'.
> >
> >
> > Only geographic, IMO. They refer to the same concept (in some general,
> > family resemblance kind of way, of course).
>
> Thanks, that's helpful.
>
> >> Would "Trade Union" be workable to US-English ears? I have a mild
> >> preference for it because it avoids the word "labor"/"labour", which
> >> has two spellings.
> >
> >
> > Workable in that people know what it means? Yes.
> >
> > But it would seem kind of oddball if, generally, Schema.org prefers US
> > English.
> >
> > I think given all the context, "Union" is a fine choice.
>
> Understood re Trade Union. How about this,
>
> URI: http://schema.org/WorkersUnion
> Blurb: "A Workers Union (also known as a Labor Union, Labour Union, or
> Trade Union) is an organization of workers who have banded together to
> achieve common goals."
>
> ...this text comes partly from Wikipedia. I'd like to have something
> other than 'banded together' but I can't think of an improvement right
> now.
>
> Dan
>
>