Re: Proposal to extend the domains of temporal and spatial

Great to hear of someone else from the world of Archives looking at
Schema.org.  You might like to check out the work of the Schema Architypes
Community Group <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/>, which has led
to our recent two proposals:

   - Archives and their collections #1758
   <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1758>
   - MaterialExtent and CollectionSize #1759
   <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1759>

As to your proposal, I agree that the utility of the ‘coverage’ versions of
these properties falls short in some of the circumstances you describe and
could be worth looking at, whilst not detracting from their current usage
focused on the contents of CreativeWorks.   The key will be in the
descriptions of the properties so as not to cause confusion for those that
are not too clear on the differences.

~Richard.



Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 7 October 2017 at 16:41, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 being superseded by the corresponding *Coverage properties.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"].
>
>