W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2017

Re: Schema.org v3.3 release candidate for review

From: Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:45:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPugn7UGMt5_8jG2jgL4Qjs8CeLA70szU8mV+rdmzW2hA_5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wallis <rjw@dataliberate.com>
Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Marijane White <whimar@ohsu.edu>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Hello

May I inquire when v3.3 will be released ? the initial planned date (june
5th) is far behind us and I don't see any blocking issue here.
I would like to be able to point people to the Legislation class in the
pending section.

Best Regards
Thomas


2017-05-26 23:47 GMT+02:00 Richard Wallis <rjw@dataliberate.com>:

> 1. In v3.3 http://webschemas.org/isAccessibleForFree is expanded to be
> available on Place.
>
> ~Richard
>
>
> On 26 May 2017, at 21:23, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2 issues / requests that came up in offline mailing list discussions with
> some state and government officials regarding Tourist Sites and their
> lecture to me about "publicly open" does not always mean FREE...after
> review of v3.3 with them for fit and fitness against their datasets.
>
> Fees for access and parking ... for publicly open http://schema.org/Place
> and http://schema.org/TouristAttraction
>
> Example:
> http://geo.wa.gov/datasets/33da1934eccf470f9ad5f30d6836c3
> c7_7?geometry=-129.223%2C46.076%2C-115.347%2C48.315&
> mapSize=map-normal&uiTab=table&orderByFields=Access_
> Fee+ASC&filterByExtent=true
>
> 1. For access fee, Looks like the access fee can be had by the usage of
> http://schema.org/isAccessibleForFree
> But the range needs to be expanded to Place perhaps, so that
> http://schema.org/TouristAttraction can take advantage of it ?
>
> 2. For parking fee, it does not appear we have something already ?
>
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:22 PM Marijane White <whimar@ohsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I realize that specialOpeningHoursSpecification is intended for things
>> like holidays, but could it also be applied to this use case?  Or perhaps
>> hoursAvailable, if public access could be modeled as a Service?  The
>> downside is that it forces the use of the OpeningHoursSpecification instead
>> of the more lightweight openingHours property.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Marijane White, MSLIS*
>>
>> Ontologist Research Associate
>>
>> Ontology Development Group
>>
>> Oregon Health & Science University Library
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Joey Gartin <joey@webdrvn.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM
>> *To: *Richard Wallis <rjw@dataliberate.com>
>> *Cc: *Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Thad Guidry <
>> thadguidry@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>, Richard Wallis <
>> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, Nicolas
>> Torzec <torzecn@yahoo-inc.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <
>> public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>,
>> Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Tom Marsh <tmarsh@exchange.microsoft.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: Schema.org v3.3 release candidate for review
>> *Resent-From: *<public-schemaorg@w3.org>
>> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 4:09 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Can it be addressed similarly to how openingHours is addressed?
>>  openPublicHours?  This is used on both LocalBusiness and CivicStructure
>> objects.
>>
>>
>> Joey Gartin
>>
>> Marketing Engineer
>>
>> joey@webdrvn.com
>>
>> (530) 276-8131 mobile
>>
>> <https://webdrvn.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Richard Wallis <rjw@dataliberate.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> And how does one say it is not a public place?
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 May 2017, at 18:35, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In this case, having a property to flag if a Place is accessible by
>> public visitors covers more ground than a Type AND is easier for publishers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't follow. If they use multiple types, they can say it is a public
>> place and a park.
>>
>>
>>
>> And a boolean does not allow places like King's Chapel in Boston, which
>> is often publicly accessible, but not during church services.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Vicki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I did some digging and scenarios of True and False on this new
>> publicAccess property on Place across some atypical Places.
>>
>> In the case of a boolean for "publicAccess" ...
>>
>>
>>
>> We have Park under CivicStructure but that's not always the case...Not
>> all Parks are actually publicly accessible or even public, some are
>> actually private but still name themselves a park.  Example of a famous one
>> in New York City: https://www.google.com/search?q=gramercy+park+new+york
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, having a property to flag if a Place is accessible by
>> public visitors covers more ground than a Type AND is easier for publishers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Backtracking and agreeing with Martin and Richard on this particular
>> property of publicAccess.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Thad
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:34 AM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I might miss the point, but I have a few concerns:
>>
>> 1. Substituting Boolean properties by types will work only if we have
>> full support for multi-typed entities in the major search engines. As soon
>> as there are adverse effects of making an entity multi-typed, we cannot
>> substitute a Boolean property by a new type.
>>
>> 2. Also, Boolean properties, like faceted classifications, allow us to
>> classify an object along multiple dimensions. As soon as we have a subclass
>> hierarchy, using types can quickly create at least confusion but often
>> inconsistencies.
>>
>> 3. From a theoretical perspective, qualitative properties and even
>> quantitative properties can also create a secondary type system.
>>
>> So in a nutshell, I think Boolean properties have their right if we want
>> to add a distinction or categorial information without messing with the
>> type hierarchy of the main type.
>>
>> Martin
>> -----------------------------------
>> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
>> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 24 May 2017, at 13:24, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.
>> com <richard..wallis@dataliberate.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > In most cases I agree with you.
>> >
>> > However in this case the boolean property was proposed to enable not
>> only the definition that a Place is open for publicAccess, but also a Place
>> is not open for publicAccess.
>> >
>> > This came from the enhancements to TouristAttraction proposals where
>> many places may well be still of interest regardless of if public access is
>> available or not; whilst that accessibility is still useful information.
>> Following the logic of defining a PublicPlace, would lead in this case to
>> creating a NonPublicPlace type to enable that capability which I believe is
>> even more clunky than the proposed boolean.
>> >
>> > ~Richard.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Richard Wallis
>> > Founder, Data Liberate
>> > http://dataliberate.com
>> > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>> > Twitter: @rjw
>> >
>> > On 22 May 2017 at 19:05, R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com> wrote:
>> > I agree. I prefer types
>> >
>> > On May 22, 2017 10:55 AM, "Vicki Tardif Holland" <vtardif@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > We should figure out a principled approach to boolean properties. I am
>> not a fan of them as they create a secondary type system (publicAccess
>> could also be PublicPlace), but because they are not actually types, you
>> cannot add properties to them. For example, you cannot say when the public
>> access hours are if they differ from other hours.
>> >
>> > With that said, it is probably not worth holding up the release.
>> Otherwise, LGTM.
>> >
>> > - Vicki
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22 May 2017 at 18:11, Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile <
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> > I already  made some comments on HowTo.
>> >
>> > Thanks - sensible tweaks, we should fold those in.
>> >
>> > I'm not enamoured of filling up on reverse properties - as far as I can
>> tell they are only for microdata, and I'm not sure why people couldn't just
>> use RDFa Lite instead, if microdata isn't serving their purposes - which I
>> suspect for many interesting cases it doesn't.
>> >
>> > There is some ongoing discussion of that here -
>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1156 - and an agreement to
>> revisit the reverse properties before any move from Pending into a named
>> extension area (or the core).
>> >
>> > Otherwise, LGTM, please go ahead.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > cheers
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22/05/17 18:06, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> > Dear Schema.org Community Group, Steering Group,
>> >
>> > Based on our consensus discussions here and in Github, here is a
>> > proposal for a new Schema.org release, version 3.3:
>> >
>> > http://webschemas.org/docs/releases.html#v3.3
>> >
>> > I'd like to aim at publishing this around June 5th. Bugs, mistakes,
>> > typos, modeling and example improvements and other detailed review
>> > comments are welcome here or in the issue tracker at
>> > https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1569
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > ps. as usual there are a few pieces of the release that will be put
>> together
>> > at the end (anything involving exact release dates, dated snapshots
>> etc.).
>> >
>> > --
>> > Charles McCathie Nevile   -   standards   -   Yandex
>> > chaals@yandex-team.ru - Find more at http://yandex.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

*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
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2017 14:46:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:35 UTC