Re: Schemas for Opinions of Federal Courts

Hi, Sam. I posted something about this a little while back. Here's a link
to my postings in the archive:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2015May/0027.html

I'd be happy to discuss this and work with you on drafting a proposal for
schema.org.

Thanks,
Stuart

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org> wrote:

> Hi Thad,
>
>
>
> I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.  I see why you might
> suggest Assess and React Action, but I think that I would be shoehorning
> judicial opinions into them.
>
>
>
> Creating a new extension might be the best option, but I am not sure that
> it would be of much benefit to search engines or the public.  I am
> ambivalent about creating a new extension if search engines will not have
> any interest in it because there is ONE or very few websites using it.
>
>
>
> Is there a way to determine whether the search engines’ “somewhat
> interested” attitude toward a Law extension would translate into use in
> search results?
>
>
>
> These are the Properties that I can envision:
>
> Court
>
> Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Defendant-Appellee
> Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>
> Citation(s)
>
> Docket Number
>
> Date Argued
>
> Date Decided
>
> Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
>
> Attorneys for Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>
> Judge/Justice Hearing Matter
> Judge/Justice Delivering Opinion
>
> Holding
>
> Area of Law
>
> Country of Jurisdiction
>
> Region of Jurisdiction
>
> Company(ies) Mentioned
>
> Individual(s) Mentioned
>
> Cases Cited
>
> Cases Citing
>
>
>
> How do these sound to you?
>
>
>
> Sam Deskin
>
> OpenJurist.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Thad Guidry [mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2015 6:56 PM
> *To:* Sam Deskin
> *Cc:* schema.org Mailing List
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
>
>
>