Re: Schemas for Opinions of Federal Courts

Hi Sam !

First, take a look at http://schema.org/AssessAction and its various
properties.  I think it has some of what you will need.  Also scroll down
on that page to look at more specific Types and click on them and review.

For example, you could sorta say right now that every appellate court judge
in the United States forms a reaction (secured as a Judgement in official
parlance) as this: http://schema.org/ReactAction

Going forward,

1. You probably will want to review earlier mailing list discussion threads
we had, here's a few:

  a. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0134.html
  b. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Feb/0082.html

2. Law never did get into any formal proposal here:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposalsArchive#2011-2014_Proposals_for_Schema.org

Contrarily, I WOULD encourage you to begin the task of helping with a
Schema.org Law extension (we do need the help in that regard from domain
experts), which has been talked about briefly before and the stakeholders
have a "somewhat interested" attitude toward it.  If someone such as
yourself with intimate domain knowledge could take the lead in helping the
community develop an extension, then that would be a terrific boon and
considered "swell !" by all of us, including the stakeholders.

Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> We are interested in marking up our website. But we want it to be useful
> for search engines and the public.
>
>
>
> None of the vocabularies seem to apply to our content.  We mostly have
> opinions of the federal appellate courts and the US Supreme Court.  Here is
> an example of a typical page:
>
>
> http://openjurist.org/279/us/249/international-shoe-co-v-shartel
>
>
>
> It is pretty well marked up with classes, but not with schemas.
>
>
>
> <p class="case_cite">279 U.S. 249</p>
>
> <p class="case_cite">49 S.Ct. 380</p>
>
> <p class="case_cite">73 L.Ed. 781</p>
>
> <p class="parties">INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO.<br/>v.<br/>SHARTEL, Attorney
> General of Missouri, et al.</p>
>
> <p class="docket">No. 579.</p>
>
> <p class="date">Argued April 25, 1929.</p>
>
> <p class="date">Decided May 13, 1929.</p>
>
> <div class="prelims">
>
> <p class="indent">Messrs. Guy A. Thompson and James D. Williamson, both of
> St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.</p>
>
> <p class="indent">Mr. Walter E. Sloat, of Jefferson City, Mo., pro hac
> vice, by special leave of court, for appellees.</p>
>
> <p class="indent">Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.</p>
>
>
>
> We would like to include schemas into the code if google, et al., will use
> them in displaying the search results to improve the information our search
> results provide to the public. But don’t particularly want to spin our
> wheels and waste resources if it will not make a difference.
>
>
>
> Do you think adding schemas will improve the information search providers
> provide to the public?
>
>
>
> Which schema should we use or should we extend our own?  My guess would be
> that creating an extension would make it even less likely that Google will
> use the information to improve search results. But none of the existing
> schemas seem to fit. Suggestions would he welcome.
>
>
>
>
> Sam Deskin
>
> OpenJurist.org
>
>
>