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

Re: Political Rhetoric Vocabulary

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:27:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7RzmqZ+5mX=5t-8DHdRf2v-bvb0QkZcfSi8rT0ZumCpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
Cc: Joe Duarte <songofapollo@gmail.com>, Eric Franzon <eric.franzon@gmail.com>, Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On 16 March 2017 at 21:55, R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com> wrote:
> You are right. Political Discourse might be a better name for it.

There are various overlapping ways in which these things might be
organized wr.t. "named hosted extension" subdomains ("lega" has been
mentioned for related work around legislation, courts etc; "civic" is
also in the air). My suggestion would be to asap get the basic term
definitions drafted into the "pending" section so that they can be
used and tested, and worry about how to name packages of terms as a
separable problem. Any attempt to partition vocab is always tricky
(e.g. ClaimReview for fact-checking is also discourse/argumentation)
but it shouldn't stop us from getting the basics in place. I'd also
like to see the earlier Legislation proposal progress, and wouldn't
want to slow either of these down by forcing a big debate for whether
they are part of a big "legal" vs "civic" vs "discourse" section....

Dan

ps. we also have http://pending.schema.org/Quotation which has some
discussion in https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/271 around
citations and date/time details


> guha
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Joe Duarte <songofapollo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, so now that I see the subClasses, I'm not sure this is about
>> rhetoric. I thought this vocab was going to be about the sorts of arguments
>> and appeals that people make in politics, maybe something along the lines of
>> AML: http://www.ai.sri.com/~seas/aml/
>>
>> or what this W3C group is working on:
>> https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/
>>
>> Rhetoric is about language, persuasion, and reasoning:
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric
>>
>> Another way to put it: rhetoric is about content and style.
>>
>> The vocab we have so far seems more like a list of events, of venues where
>> a politician might give a speech, as well as a couple of documents a US
>> President might issue (and others have noted the US-centricity of it).
>> That's not really about rhetoric – that's just a list of things Presidents
>> do in the general domain of speeches and press releases.
>>
>> It also strikes me as odd that Political Rhetoric would be narrowed down
>> to what chief executives of a nation do. Even if we thought that rhetoric
>> meant giving a speech to this audience, then to another audience, etc.,
>> there's no reason to suppose that the only speakers we care about are chief
>> executives of countries. That's not even half of the goings-on in the domain
>> of politicians going around giving speeches and releasing statements or
>> orders. There are legislators, governors, state legislators, lobbyists,
>> activists, etc. – a lot of political action of the speeches-and-releases
>> variety doesn't even come from people in government, but people outside of
>> it. So if this is meant specifically to encode some important things about
>> what national chief executives do, I suggest calling it something more like
>> Political Events or Political Addresses.
>>
>> By the way, I'll probably try to dovetail with this at some point in the
>> next or so – I own argumentbase.com (there's nothing there yet), but I plan
>> to build a schema for arguments and positions (mostly political in nature),
>> including evidence quality, which will be very interesting and perilous as
>> far as pulling it off without ruining it with unconscious political biases
>> (I'm the lead author of this paper, so I'm always worried about political
>> bias.) I'll need a lot of help to keep it clean and maximally useful.
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:44 AM, R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Absolutely. My hope is to have both.
>>>
>>> guha
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Eric Franzon <eric.franzon@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My preference is for InauguralAddress, as HOS is specific to the country
>>>> level, but I would like to be able to describe entities such as those in
>>>> this page:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.westgov.org/news/357-news-2017/1341-western-governors-deliver-inaugural-speeches
>>>>
>>>> --Eric
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:54 PM, R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the reasoning behind having both "InauguralAddress" and
>>>>>> "USPInauguralAddress"? My concern is that (unless we adopt a less US-centric
>>>>>> prefix such as "HOS" - see below) then we will end up with requests for
>>>>>> near-identical classes for many other major countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> InauguralAddress could potentially cover a much larger set of
>>>>> inaugurals. but I completely agree with your suggestion of replacing USP
>>>>> with HOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> guha
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Eric Axel Franzon
>>>>
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ericfranzon
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/EricAxel
>>>> G+: http://http://gplus.to/ericfranzon
>>>> Online Business Card: http://ericaxel.magntize.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2017 23:28:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:34 UTC