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

Re: Proposal to extend the domains of temporal and spatial

From: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 21:35:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHQ1n3CyrRRaOVjpSu7QpS4eAX4A94w3=JWV2HsDsQy7ODSYFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
I guess it would be also useful to add physicalDescription for
CreativeWork. Opened new issue #1765 for addition of these properties.

https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1765
cheers,

2017-10-08 0:41 GMT+09:00 KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>:
> Thanks for quick reply.
>
>> "spatialCoverage" is better modeled as a specialized subproperty of
>> "spatial" (and same for temporal(Coverage)) ?
>
> Ah, well, given that spatialCoverage is sub-property of
> contentLocation and temporalCoverage is just a property in current
> model, reorganization seems make sense.
>
> cheers,
>
>
> 2017-10-08 0:27 GMT+09:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:
>> 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 being superseded by the corresponding *Coverage properties.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"].
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
> "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].



-- 
@prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
Received on Sunday, 8 October 2017 12:36:20 UTC

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