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

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

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:24:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz6kvHtHAjCDMcY1GdBEWCcjP+47PP752U29krRJU--NwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Nicolas Torzec <torzecn@yahoo-inc.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Tom Marsh <tmarsh@exchange.microsoft.com>
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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 11:25:27 UTC

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