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

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

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:01:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CAChbWaNeVY_MwWt2KGOJcrqCkb5-Q3_ehjLgw6nH3xHSgM8oVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Hans Polak <info@polak.es>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Thanks Richard & Felipe,

Finally a well explained reason that I am OK with having just a boolean and
not a Type.
" 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."

It sounds like Felipe is trying to say that the word "accessible" also
means "open" to him and the Tourist industry.

If the intent was to equate the 2 notions of "accessible" and
"open"...Perhaps an addendum to the description of the property
"publicAccess" would be to say also that ...

"A flag to signal that the Place is accessible *or open *to public
visitors.  *If this property is omitted there is no assumed default boolean
value*"

As always, it seems the descriptions we choose can make or break proper
usage and why I am always so adamant about giving our descriptions more
context.

But regardless, I feel strongly now (with a better description on the
property) that a boolean can work just fine and there is no need for a new
Type.

-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 14:02:21 UTC

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