Re: September Update on Sports

Peter,

I agree with Martin, that we want the simple cases within Schema.org and
leave other KOS / Vocabularies to pick up the long-tail of sub
categorization and sub-Typing for certain domains.

I think just using a SKOS, or some other KOS, to do the actual sub-Typing
in Schema.org through the use of http://schema.org/additionalType should
handle saying that "doubles badminton" is a sub-Type of "badminton", etc.

(rugby and rugby union would probably not have an additionalType
relationship...they are 2 different Things, one is a Sport, the other a
type of Organization)






On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Without sub-sports, you have to determine at what level you are going to
> have sports.  For example, is badminton a sport, or is it racquet sport, or
> doubles badminton?  Is it ski racing, or alpine ski racing, or slalom, or
> men's slalom, or Olympic men's slalom?  Is it rugby, or rugby union and
> rugby league?
>
> If you can have sub-sports, then you don't need to make all these
> decisions. If you are a rugby union player then you are a rugby player,
> etc., etc.
>
> This is the approach taken by Cyc, which does a good job of it.  DBpedia
> has some aspects of this approach, but doesn't carry it through.  Freebase
> uses similar approaches in some places, like professions, but doesn't have
> the representational power to fully support this representational meme.
>
> peter
>
>
>
> On 09/25/2014 06:01 AM, trond.huso@ntb.no wrote:
>
>> What is a sub-sport?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 24. september 2014 21:00
>> To: Dan Brickley; Vicki Tardif Holland
>> Cc: Jason Johnson (BING); W3C Web Schemas Task Force; Gregg Kellogg
>> Subject: Re: September Update on Sports
>>
>> Intriguing.
>>
>> Is there going to be a non-trivial theory of sports.  For example, will
>> there be sub-sports?
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 09/24/2014 11:19 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2014 18:48, "Vicki Tardif Holland" <vtardif@google.com
>>> <mailto:vtardif@google.com>> wrote:
>>>   >
>>>   >
>>>   > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Gregg Kellogg
>>> <gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>> wrote:
>>>   >>
>>>   >> A "namedPosition" property would be fine, as long as the range is
>>> not schema:Text. IMO, something like this should use URIs for such
>>> enumerated values. Schema.org always allows falling back to text.
>>>   >
>>>   >
>>>   > I am looking at http://sdo-sports.appspot.com/OrganizationRole. The
>>> range is URL or text. I agree that URIs should be used to have any
>>> hope of understanding what the value means.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm also updating 'sport' property similarly.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>