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

Re: Proposal to extend the domains of temporal and spatial

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 16:27:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4d5uTtA8qqgj=ytHesnGT6q0AMfZ=2Gn0Js8rOpJjPeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
I like the idea of improving this and addressing your use case. From a
quick look it seems that we have marked 'spatial' and 'temporal" as
being superseded by the corresponding *Coverage properties. Perhaps
that is a mistake that we made and we should distinguish the different
kinds of relationship that things can have to places/times. Maybe
"spatialCoverage" is better modeled as a specialized subproperty of
"spatial" (and same for temporal(Coverage)) ?

Dan

On 7 October 2017 at 16:10, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hell everyone,
>
> I'd like to propose to extend the applicable type (domain) of
> schema:temporal and schema:spatial to CreativeWork (or possibly to
> Thing) from current Dataset.
>
> Background and rationale:
> I'm now designing the metadata model for the national archive, which
> will aggregate data about wide range of cultural heritage objects.
> While CreativeWork has temporalCoverage and spatialCoverage, these are
> not sufficient to describe many different aspects of CH objects (See
> issue #1803[1] for background of these properties).
>
> For example, archaeological artifacts have time/place of excavation,
> or specimens have time/place of collection. Those are not good fit for
> temporalCoverage and spatialCoverage because these properties are
> expected to describe "the (focus of the) content".
>
> Rather than minting every new properties e.g. temporalExcavation, it
> would be beneficial for many cases to provide generic temporal and
> spatial properties. Leave current temporalCoverage and spatialCoverage
> as they are, which would be still good for standard content
> description.
>
> Would that be reasonable? Your comments and/or suggestions are welcome.
>
> best regards,
>
> [1] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1083#issuecomment-233043971
>
>
> --
> @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
> "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
>
Received on Saturday, 7 October 2017 15:29:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:37 UTC