Re: Reusing "status" property from the health-lifesci extension

+1

Let's plan move it to the core then. In health-lifesci extension we will
have 'medicalStudyStatus' as sub-property.

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

On 17 October 2016 at 22:56, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> Let's not deprecate it. We can add it to the core as a general purpose
> super-property of case-specific status properties, if we can find
> wording and structure that works ...
>
> On 17 October 2016 at 22:51, Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > 2016-10-17 22:47 GMT+02:00 Marc . <twamarc@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> The property https://health-lifesci.schema.org/status is planned to be
> >> deprecated because is too broad even in health_and_life science.
> >> It will be superseded by ```studyStatus```.
> >
> >
> > That solves the problem, then :-)
> >
> >>
> >> Therefore I am in favour of having your own specialized property in
> >> legislation vocab.
> >
> >
> > Will keep "legislationLegalForce" then, maybe rename it to
> > "legislationStatus", to be discussed.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Thomas
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> See
> >> also:https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/
> 1114#issuecomment-212845014
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Marc
> >> ________________________________________
> >>
> >> On 17 October 2016 at 17:23, Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> In the context of the ongoing proposed legal/legislation extension [1],
> >>> we were suggested to reuse the "status" property instead of our
> >>> "legislationLegalForce" referring to "LegalForceStatus" enumeration.
> >>> We have nothing against the idea of using "status" instead of
> >>> "legislationLegalForce" if we can keep the "LegalForceStatus"
> enumeration,
> >>> except that "status" is currently defined in the health-lifesci
> extension
> >>> [2]
> >>> This raises some questions :
> >>>
> >>> What is the process for reusing terms from another extension ? should
> >>> they be moved to core first, before being reused ?
> >>> Should I go ahead and broaden the definition of "status" and its
> allowed
> >>> range in the health-lifesci extension in my proposed pull request ? or
> >>> should this be done by the responsible of the health-lifesci extension
> ?
> >>> Should I simply open a separate issue to ask to broaden the definition
> of
> >>> "status" ?
> >>>
> >>> My questions are really on the process/governance associated to the
> >>> possible reuse of a property across extensions.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>> [1] : https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1156
> >>> [2] : https://health-lifesci.schema.org/status
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Thomas Francart - SPARNA
> >>> Web de données | Architecture de l'information | Accès aux
> connaissances
> >>> blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin :
> >>> fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
> >>> tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thomas Francart - SPARNA
> > Web de données | Architecture de l'information | Accès aux connaissances
> > blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin :
> > fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
> > tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
>