Re: Schema addition request

I think developing: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1493 has
alot of merit.

On Tue., 21 Mar. 2017, 9:35 am Brian Tremblay, <schema@btrem.com> wrote:

> On 3/19/17 11:57 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:24 PM Brian Tremblay wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/18/17 4:29 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> >>> On 3/18/17 11:55 AM, Brian Tremblay wrote:
> >>>> On 3/17/17 6:13 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:59 AM BJM wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Would like to propose the addition of "MedicalSpa" to the
> >>>>>> schema library.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 for MedicalSpa.  Looks like an industry gap that needs
> >>>>> filled
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? What is this gap? Are there search engines looking for
> >>>> this schema? Are there /any/ tools that would use this new type?
> >>>
> >>> the below trending data is just from one search engine
> >>>
> >>
> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=USq=medical%20spa,day%20spa,medical%20clinc
> >>
> >> What this shows is that people are searching for medical spa; what
> >> it does not shown is that the proposed schema for MedicalSpa will
> >> help them. It won't, unless Google or other entities actually make
> >> use of the schema.
> >
> > Correct Brian.  And no one can make use of a schema ... that does
> > not exist first.
>
> Yeahbut schema.org has /already/ created hundreds of schemas. How many
> are meaningfully used? 10? Take the example at hand. Is anyone doing
> anything with DaySpa? What about its parent, HealthAndBeautyBusiness? Is
> anyone using that? If there's no real usage, then why create a sub-type
> MedicalSpa? That's just another schema that no one is using.
>
> There's a sense here that there's no harm in creating new schemas, but
> there is. The community is expending resources creating new schemas, and
> authors must search an ever-expanding number of schemas to find the
> right one. So there's a cost; what is the benefit? In many cases, there
> appears to be none.
>
> > But perhaps you don't quite realize how Schema.org works.
> > http://videolectures.net/iswc2013_guha_tunnel/
> >
> > Which is why BJM initially created this type addition request.  So
> > that applications, Search Engines, and others can make some sense of
> > it.
>
> Search engines ignore most schemas, afaict. In the past, when people
> have asked if they'll be used, the answer is, "you never know". IMHO,
> that's not good enough. There's an implication that using e.g. microdata
> with a schema.org vocabulary will have some benefit to the author. I
> think that implication is disingenuous.
>
> > The typical flow with Schema.org is
> >
> > Step 1. Create schema.
> > Step 2 & 3 in nearly lockstep. Community and applications/search
> > engines begin using the schema created in step 1.
> > Step 4. Everyone benefits much more than they did compared to 20
> > years ago.
>
> Steps 2 and 3 don't seem to happen very much, except with a handful of
> vocabularies.
>
> I realize this is a chicken and egg predicament. Search engines can't
> consume a schema that no one uses, and no one will use a schema that
> search engines don't consume. But it seems to me that we should take a
> bit more of the "pave the cowpaths" approach. What are authors currently
> doing, and what are search engines currently doing? and use that as a
> model for vocabs.
>
> --
> Brian Tremblay
>
>