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

Dear all,

Many thanks for the ongoing discussion about the change proposal to 
TouristAttraction brought forward by the Tourism Structured Data group, 
I am impressed and grateful by the attention that you are paying to it.

One example of a tourist site which is not publicly accessible is the 
Cave of Altamira, a World Heritage Site recognized as a masterpiece of 
Paleolithic Art for its paintings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira It was open for years to 
tourists until it was discovered that the paintings suffered from the 
visitors. As you can read in the Wikipedia article, the place has been 
closed to the public and a replica cave and interpretation centre has 
been built in a nearby site.
Now, examples of places like this abound in the world of tourism: 
private palaces like the Maison de l'Amérique Latine in Paris (only 
private visitors are allowed), castles like Sully-sur-Loire being 
restored 
<http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/centre-val-de-loire/loiret/chateau-sully-loire-ferme-cause-travaux-1102837.html> 
and temporarily closed to the public, protected places like the Cave of 
Altamira...

Based on our past experience, which I try to convey in the examples 
above, in terms of tourism we think it makes sense to give to travelers 
information that a tourist site is not accessible, rather than not 
publishing the site itself. If I wanted as a traveler to visit the Cave 
of Altamira, I would be happy to find it in a search engine, learn that 
it is closed, and that I can visit instead its replica and 
interpretation centre.

Coming back to the example of the King's Chapel in Boston, closed during 
service hours, I would model it as being open to the public, giving the 
opening ours, and explaining in the description that the church is open 
except during services.

Besides, I won't enter into the debate regarding the modeling choice 
since I am not an expert in schema.org; based on Richard's guidance we 
found within the tourism group that a boolean property looked simple and 
good to express the reality described above. Quoting Richard,
> If the consensus it that this maybe problematic, the domain could be 
> narrowed back to being TouristAttraction again.

Best,
Felipe


> Thad Guidry <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>
> 25 May 2017 at 01:03
> Richard,
>
> Then what does a consumer do with information that a tourist site is 
> NOT publicly accessible ?  What traits are lacking on that tourist 
> site when its not publicly accessible ?  Why is a mountain not 
> accessible to the public, because there's a fence around it ?  What 
> happened to all the expedition hikers that book trips ?  Now I'm 
> really confused without more examples than a generic "mountain".
>
> Devil's advocate,
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
>
> Richard Wallis <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> 25 May 2017 at 00:28
> /*publicAccess*/
> In the context being proposed (tourist attractions), not being 
> accessible to the public is very different to not being open.  
> Tourists visit buildings and look at spectacular views all the time.  
> A mountain may not be accessible to the public, but it would be open 
> to view all the time.  However the fact that it was also directly 
> accessible, or not, is important information.
>
> To give some background, as you are aware this proposal comes from the 
> Tourism Data <https://www.w3.org/community/tourismdata/> group, who 
> have provided the many examples shown on the TouristAttraction 
> <http://webschemas.org/TouristAttraction> page.  As you can see from 
> those, it is intended to make use of MTE capability to indicate that 
> anything can also be a TouristAttraction.
>
> One of the expected uses of this will be by tourist information and 
> local administration organisations describing the benefits of visiting 
> their locality.  This may well result in the description being 
> provided by that organisation on their tourist site, not necessarily 
> the owners of the business or building.  Equally many tourist 
> attractions are landForms (mountains, lookout points, beaches, etc.) 
> which maybe publicly viewable but not publicly owned or accessible.
>
> Within the group, publicAccess was initially proposed with a domain of 
> TouristAttraction where this makes most sense and is not relevant to 
> the place being public or not.  The proposal was extended to making 
> the domain to include Place because it was felt that this would be 
> both relevant and useful beyond tourism.  If the consensus it that 
> this maybe problematic, the domain could be narrowed back to being 
> TouristAttraction again.
>
> ~Richard
>
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
> R.V.Guha <mailto:guha@guha.com>
> 24 May 2017 at 21:48
> In the limit, how is this different from opening hours? At least 
> conceptually?
>
> guha
>
>
> Richard Wallis <mailto:rjw@dataliberate.com>
> 24 May 2017 at 19:29
> 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 
> <mailto:vtardif@google.com>> wrote:
>
> Vicki Tardif Holland <mailto:vtardif@google.com>
> 24 May 2017 at 18:35
>
> 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
>
>
>