Re: Vocabulary for Article

We already have support for the following:

A dictionary term:  https://pending.schema.org/DefinedTerm
An encyclopedia entry (when referring to an entry in the context of within
the pages of a book or volume form) https://schema.org/Thing or
https://pending.schema.org/DefinedTerm

However, as now many encyclopedia are in online form, each Online
Entry (*Articles
written to describe a Thing or DefinedTerm*) in an encyclopedia should be
considered an Article https://schema.org/Article because that is in fact
how nearly all of them treat their entries now:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/foreclosure

Where each Article can have an author, alternativeHeadline, articleBody,
pageStart, pageEnd, pagination, contributors, etc.

But as I said earlier, if I were writing a blog or article and wanted to
mention a particular entry in an book or volume form ecyclopedia, I would
probably wrap that with DefinedTerm and treat the book or volume form
encyclopedia as a https://schema.org/CreativeWork as well as probably a
https://pending.schema.org/DefinedTermSet

Hope this helps clarify a bit more,


On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:13 AM Michael Andrews <nextcontent01@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't see anything in the definition of Article to suggest an article
> must be 'objective'. Entire magazines are composed of commentary, which is
> perfectly fine. Article covers all types, not just 'news'.  Even the
> definition of NewsArticle allows interpretative content.
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 4:14 PM Niels <nielsl@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>> That is a goid question Laura. Wikipedia, and its predicesser nunpedia,
>> are a very special sort of project, aiming to be a collection of entries by
>> anyone who has sonething useful to add. Such thing already has a name. A
>> wiki. I think it may very well be debated is a wiki page should be seen as
>> an article. I personally dont think a wiki page is a type article.
>>
>> A normal encyclopidia has a publisher and a (number of) author(s). Such
>> os much closer to an article.
>>
>>
>> Hans Polak points out a newsarticle should not be confused with an
>> opinated article. News is unopiniated, objective. I agree with him. The
>> issue is not with calling such work an article, the issue is with the word
>> news, which is these days used for pretty much anything.
>>
>> An article telling us that the cat whom has been stuck in a tree has
>> finally been resqued is news. It tells us something new, something we did
>> not know yet, as its main intent.
>> An article explaining how high cats can climb and from what hight they
>> can usually jump, is not news, but is backgroud.
>> An article telling us that the cat was stupid to climb in such a high
>> tree is not news, but is an opiniated article.
>>
>> This is all quite obvious, but some news agencies seem to ignor these
>> distinctions, likely because news sells, and it sells better than bacground
>> stories or opinions. Calling it news sells better.
>> But dont let that push you away from the fact that news articles are
>> objective in nature, and for now you can mark up encyclopedia entries as
>> newsarticle to imply objective information.
>>
>>
>> "The fact that some newspapers taint their news coverage with their
>> political preferences is lamentable, but they're not per definition
>> subjective."
>> They are not subjective,but they are opiniated. They are not simply
>> factual reporting of events. A distinction between an objective report and
>> an opiniated article should be made clear by the publisher. The vocab
>> should at least accomodate the posibility of making that distinction.
>>
>> I hope the vocab can be extended to make a seperate type available for
>> wiki's.
>>
>> As for the word news being abused, that is a debate society is finally
>> about to have, now that the term fake news has come about. We will probably
>> start seeing news agencies reinventing the name of the articles they sell
>> to distinct themselfs from less objective compeditors. This is an issue
>> much bigger than just the schema.org vocab.
>>
>> What we could do in schema.org is adjust the description of news
>> article, to very clearly state that with newsarticle wemean an objective
>> reporting of news. If it is not objective, it should be marked as opiniated
>> article instead. That way it is atleast made very clear to anyone using the
>> vocab that marking opinated articles as news is faulty use of the vocab.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>> Kind regards,
>> Niels Lancel
>>
>>
>>
>> On August 6, 2018 11:36:02 AM GMT+02:00, Hans Polak <info@polak.es>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good morning,
>>>
>>> I'd say that (ideally) newspaper articles are objective. Opinion pieces
>>> are not newspaper articles.
>>>
>>> The fact that some newspapers taint their news coverage with their
>>> political preferences is lamentable, but they're not per definition
>>> subjective.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, adding "encyclopedic entries" to the description is
>>> an excellent idea.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 06/08/18 07:31, Laura Morales wrote:
>>>
>>> "Article" is defined as "An article, such as a news article or piece of investigative report. Newspapers and magazines have articles of many different types and this is intended to cover them all."
>>>
>>> Would this be appropriate to identify articles such as encyclopedic entries? For example a Wikipedia article? The current definition seems to suggest that an article is some kind of work with a subjective point of view, for example a newspaper or magazine article. What can I use instead to identify an article which is objective and does not contain personal opinions, for example an encyclopedia's article?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --

Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://plus.google.com/+ThadGuidry>