W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Non-schema.org ontologies

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:52:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaMTze6EiEL2_b+ZD9gU_yiW=uUsFywanpTXAouJXEZpAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> It can be easy for admiral goals (handling a longer tail of geo/spatial
> kinds of place e.g. by using external lists such as from Wikidata) stand in
> the way of simple easy improvements, such as adding PublicToilet directly.
> I'd support doing so if the rough consensus here is that this would be
> useful progress. We also recently have the "pending.schema.org" area of
> the site where proposals can be aired and refined. Should we go ahead and
> add PublicToilet there?
​Yes, just add it there.  I feel strongly about just doing it since as
Timothy pointed out and in his research that I read through... its a useful
public amenity just like a BusStop or Airport.​  I feel strongly that any
Public Civic Structure that is maintained by a government or has government
overview somehow, should have a Type in Schema.org.  And I think that is
Timothy's point to all of us, and I agree with him on that.

+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 14:52:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:29 UTC