W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-opentrack@w3.org > November 2017

Re: Competition Types [was Re: Meeting 22 Nov (09:00 UTC)]

From: Martin Alvarez-Espinar <martin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:32:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL8AgZQhdrBVR=W_UgN0U-1+RmR3+YYLiiJjyzoPuMP7s2Z6xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Launois <nicolas.launois@european-athletics.org>
Cc: public-opentrack <public-opentrack@w3.org>
Hi Nicolas,

*NL: should we consider the age group (master, U23, U20, U14…) at this
> level?*

Fine. This is already included in the model. It's under the name of
'category'. Internally, in the vocabulary I proposed the term

> (2) may be solved with a sub-property of "spatial coverage". The question
> here is if we should indicate either
> (a) the level of coverage (National, International, Local)
> *NL: may be difficult to create pre-defined value for each country. Some
> countries may have county or region or area. To start with, we could have
> International Area/Continent, Sub-Area (in Europe: Balkan, Nordic, Baltic,
> G5,… ) National and maybe local to generalise the sub-national level*

Level of coverage is fine to me:
IAAF distinguish 'Country' and 'Territory'. The second is defined as: "A
geographical territory or region which is not a Country, but which has
certain aspects of self-government, at least to the extent of being
autonomous in the control of its sport and which is thus recognised as such
by the IAAF."

What about:
* International Area (several countries and territories)
* National (just one country)
* Regional/Local (can include all what IAAF refers to 'territory')

Sub-Area could be tricky, because it could include countries or regions of
different continents (for instance,The Commonweath).

> (b) the place itself (e.g., EEA-countries, IAAF-territories, Spain,
> France, Surrey county, etc.).
> *NL: as I understand, the location is defined under 6.13.1. Otherwise, how
> do you define Spain as it is an EAA-territory as well as an IAAF-territory*

This proposal is having the previous (level of coverage) implicit within
the definition of the administrative area, that must be unique. For
instance, Spain is always identified as the 'same' Spain for both EAA and
IAAF. We also could specify other lower levels (have a look at the geotree
of all administrative areas of Spain  http://geotree.geonames.org/2510769/

Anyway, this representation is more difficult to implement. For instance,
European competitions (organised by EEA) may include non-European countries
(i.e., AZE). Right? In order to represent the coverage of European
Champioships we would need to include the union of all the countries whose
federations are EAA members.

> I'm not sure if we need (3).
> *NL: actually, this may be of importance. In fact, with the way we work,
> this parameter could call another layer of information:*
>    - *If this parameter (3) is Championships, we have enough definition
>    with discipline, age group and level of coverage*
>    - *On the other hand, if the event is a meeting, we need to define who
>    is the body recognising this event: IAAF level meeting (Diamond League and
>    World Challenge), EA (EA Classic, Premium…), National permit…*
The BBC Sports Ontology includes the following subClasses of Competition
that can be used:
* KnockoutCompetition
* Match
* LeagueCompetition
* MultiDisciplineCompetition
* MultiStageCompetition

In the model, there is already information about the organiser of the
event. So I suppose now we need another property to describe the governing
body that supervises/authorises the competition.

> *There can be another level: the quality measure (‘label’) within the same
> type of events, recognised by a body. For instance, IAAF has different
> labels for its IAAF certified road races
> (https://www.iaaf.org/competitions/iaaf-label-road-races
> <https://www.iaaf.org/competitions/iaaf-label-road-races>) and EA has
> ‘standards’ for its recognised road races too
> (http://www.european-running4all.org/en/standards/
> <http://www.european-running4all.org/en/standards/>).*

I see the point… This is even more complex and far from a universal
standard :-)

> So maybe a model like this would work:
> [Level of Coverage] [discipline] [age group] [(if meeting) Body
> recognising] [Event Type]
I agree!


Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 16:33:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 22 November 2017 16:33:16 UTC