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

Hi all,

Maybe it is possible to benefit when each National Federation could describe it’s own local structure under some section. This can be an example of decentralized structure maintained by local representatives. So this is left on local level, and no need to spend time for describing it by EA. How do you think?

 

--------------------------------

Ivan Kachkivskyi
Official Ukrainian Statistician, ATFS Member 
E-mail: ivan.work.mail@gmail.com
E-mail: ivan@ivan.org.ua
www.ivan.org.ua 

 

From: Martin Alvarez-Espinar [mailto:martin.alvarez@fundacionctic.org] 
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Andy Robinson <andy@reportlab.com>
Cc: Martin Alvarez-Espinar <martin@w3.org>; Nicolas Launois <nicolas.launois@european-athletics.org>; public-opentrack <public-opentrack@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Competition Types [was Re: Meeting 22 Nov (09:00 UTC)]

 

Hi Andy,

 

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

This geographical taxonomy seems unnecessary to me, a possibility for
endless scope creep, and I do not believe anyone ever came up with a
single "correct way to do it".  I worked for 6 years for Hilton group
who had a 9-level hierarchy of tourist information that needed endless
discussion and policing, and I don't think this will be a good use of
our time.

 

But, apart from EEA, national federations follow a similar approach, enabling filters on their calendars. For instance:

* ESP (international, national)

* IRL (international, national, provincial, county, club, open)

* FRA (international, regional, inter-regional, departamental, inter-clubs)

* CZE (foreign, national, regional…) 

…

 

Taking Martin's last race, I don't personally care how you describe
"Mitcham Common, London", and whether its classified as part of
London, or Surrey, or the "Royal and Ancient Geographical County of
Surrey for Sporting Purposes" (yes, that exists and it matters).  When
exchanging lists, we just want to know where it happens.  So why not
use...

1. Latitude and Longitude, if we have it!
2. If not, A piece of text you can pass to Google Maps or other
geocoders. An address or postcode of a track or stadium name are even
better.  Given this info, we can derive the
latitude/longitude/altitude
3. The country, which is usually fairly clear.

 

What you mention here is the *geographical location* of the venue, which is currently described in [https://w3c.github.io/opentrack-cg/spec/model/#place]. There you can find the information you mention. See the example published on the doc:

{

    "name": "Olympic Stadium Amsterdam",

    "geo": {

        "latitude": "52.343417",

        "longitude": "4.854192",

        "elevation": "123.93"    

    },

    "map": "http://example.org/map",

    "address": {

        "streetAddress": "Olympisch Stadion 2",

        "addressLocality": "Amsterdam",

        "postalCode": "1076 DE",

        "addressCountry": "countrycode:NLD"

    }

} 

 


Once you have this, Google and many other OpenStreetMap tools can tell
you the administrative boundaries, or search by proximity.  Below I
show two lines of code to do it.  Anyone building a database of
competitions in their country can use these libraries to "get it right
for them".  They may be interested in political or sporting boundaries
and they can be different.

So let's publish the minimum, and maybe offer tutorials and tools on
how to extend it.

 

As always, all the properties are optional, depending on the information we manage.

 

With "level of coverage" I think you are also skirting into different
questions over jurisdiction, not location.  These are best answered
by...

 

Right. This is the purpose of the classification based on (international, national, regional, etc.) proposed above.

 


4. Who is organising it?    We are developing organisation codes, but
an org name or link to their website would do.

 

There is a property "organizer" already (it could be a person or organisation)

 

5. Which body or bodies are licensing it?  There may be permits from
national body, European Athletics, IAAF

 

+1 -> I think this is what Nicolas called "label". Maybe an additional property like 'licencedBy' or extending the one we already have, 'recognizingAuthority'. 

 

6. is it part of a larger series or league?

 

This can be modeled with the types of competitions defined by the BBC Ontology (KnockoutCompetition, Match, LeagueCompetition, etc.)

 

7. Does the event have its own website?

 

This is already included by the property 'url'. 

 

8. Is there a restriction on who can enter, or is it open to anyone? 

This could be descriptive text.

 

There is already a field for this: 

* 'entryRequirements'.- Requirements to take part in a competition.

 


Geocoding is trivial in all languages.
>>> import geocoder
>>> g = geocoder.google('Mountain View, CA')
>>> g.latlng
(37.3860517, -122.0838511)

 

Definitely, the most geo information we have, the better. We all know the precision issues of geocoding when information is missing.

 

Best,

 

Martin