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

and +1

2016-10-17 23:00 GMT+02:00 Marc . <twamarc@gmail.com>:

> +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 It will be superseded by ```studyStatus```.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
>>
>
>


-- 

*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