Re: Right way to propose changes to the current schema?

On 12 September 2017 at 17:34, Susheel Varma <
susheel.varma@elixir-europe.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Leyla - Are you suggesting to move schema.org CreativeWork
> <http://schema.org/CreativeWork> properties (hasPart
> <http://schema.org/hasPart>, isPartOf <http://schema.org/isPartOf>) to
> its more generic parent Thing <http://schema.org/Thing>? Any particular
> reason why?
>

Historically we have always resisted attempts at generalising
hasPart/isPartOf to non-document notions of part, but see
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1097#issuecomment-209014851
for some of that discussion and suggested way forward.

For isBasedOn / isBasisFor - I had a feeling we'd done it already. There
was a proposal as part of the legislation documentation effort,
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1156 ... I'm just asking
there what became of that proposal,
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1156#issuecomment-328914376


>
> Best wishes
> § Susheel
>
> On 12 September 2017 at 15:09, Dan Bolser <dan.bolser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would suggest making a pull request against
>> https://github.com/BioSchemas and initiating the discussion (which I
>> think you just did ;-)
>>
>> Not sure which repo to edit.
>>
>> Can you motivate the changes?
>>
>> On 12 September 2017 at 06:14, ljgarcia <ljgarcia@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> We would like to propose moving hasPart/isPartOf from CreativeWork to
>>> Thing. We would also like to propose a reverse property for isBasedOn (it
>>> would be isBasisFor) that would go to CreativeWork.
>>>
>>> What would be the right way to do so? Should we include a schema for
>>> Thing and CreativeWork including those changes? And they, if approved,
>>> would be later merged?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>
>