- From: Pavly Mikhael <pavlym@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:27:35 -0400
- To: markchipman@gmail.com
- Cc: mfhepp@gmail.com, danbri@google.com, public-schemaorg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+-crcevwLwSZ8k_KktpEcDsrAD5eDODN_p_TZNw=EpcKPZPDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you Martin for this great exposition. I think many of my list can fall into some abstract type, and will use the additionalType URL if I find any. Will let you all know if I struggled finding a fit to any item. Thank you all Pavly Mikhael On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:15 PM Mark Chipman <markchipman@gmail.com> wrote: > Many thanks. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Official extensions mitigate this only at a code-management level, >> because the definitions are kept in a separate folder, but they still clog >> the main namespace (more or less). External extensions are possible, but >> easily confusing, likely to introduce inconsistencies and redundancies >> (because they do not pass a rigorous core schema.org community review). >> >> If the aim is more to be able to express more granular data for general >> purposes while providing schema.org for mainstream search engines, then >> an external vocabulary, independent from schema.org (maybe adhering to >> its meta-model), is IMO the best way. An then use multi-typed entities to >> use your additional elements. >> >> Best wishes >> Martin >> ----------------------------------- >> martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de >> mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp >> >> >> >> >> > On 09 Aug 2018, at 20:59, Mark Chipman <markchipman@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I thought stuff like this is why extensions to schema.org exist in the >> first place. Shouldn't topics like this exist as an extension rather than >> polluting the schema with everything under the sun? Can someone verify >> this if I'm not mistaken. Thanks. >> > >> > Mark >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:31 PM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi Pavly, all possible contributors: >> > Thanks for your proposals! >> > I think it is important to explain that the schema.org community is >> generally conservative about adding new elements, because new elements come >> at a cost: They make the vocabulary more difficult to learn, use, and >> manage, and they increase the risk of unintended side-effects, like the >> duplication of alternative elements that are similar to existing ones. >> > >> > As a general guideline, we need more specific subtypes only >> > >> > - if there are, or are likely, applications by major consumers of the >> data that will need the additional specificity, i.e. that will handle >> entity data differently based on the specific type. For instance "Parking >> Lot" and "Amusement Park" as subtypes of "Place" are needed only if e.g. >> Google would display them differently or if they require additional >> properties that will be weird at a more abstract type. But in general, we >> rather put properties one level higher in the type hierarchy rather than >> adding a subtype only for having a proper place for a property. Otherwise, >> it will be perfectly fine to use abstract types like "Place" or even >> "Thing". And then there is always the additionalType property and support >> for multi-typed entities with external vocabularies; >> > >> > - if the distinction can be expected to be easily populated, e.g. >> because it matches database schemas or HTML templates of many sites; >> > >> > AND >> > >> > - if the distinction cannot be easily reconstructed from other data >> sources. For instance, we added a mechanism for EXIF meta-data when we >> added the PropertyValue mechanism: >> > >> > https://schema.org/exifData >> > >> > This was arguably not really needed, because a search engine parsing >> the image data can also extract the same meta-data therefrom. >> > >> > This is an edge-case, but I hope you get the idea. Other examples are >> pieces of information or meta-data that is readily available from HTTP >> protocol meta-data or the HTML DOM tree. The latter is again arguable, >> because we might want to have elements in schema.org that can be >> reconstructed from HTML, but not from data in other syntaxes. >> > >> > I hope this is helpful. >> > >> > Best wishes >> > Martin Hepp >> > >> > ----------------------------------- >> > martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de >> > mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > On 09 Aug 2018, at 19:11, Pavly Mikhael <pavlym@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > Thanks for getting back to me. >> > > If schema.org can combine with wikidata.org, that would be great. >> > > Meanwhile, I would much appreciate if you guys can add at least the >> following: >> > > >> > > OrthodoxChurch (Wiki refers to this as Eastern Orthodox Church), >> maybe you can name this 'EasternOrthodoxChurch' >> > > OrientalOrthodoxChurch (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q49377), which >> is different from Eastern Orthodox Church >> > > Biography >> > > Excerpt >> > > Quote >> > > Lyric >> > > Song >> > > EthnicGroup >> > > SaintIcon >> > > ChurchRite >> > > >> > > Notes: >> > > • OrientalOrthodoxChurch will be relevant to our Coptic >> Orthodox Church. >> > > • The ones in red were not in my original list. >> > > I will be glad to help if you guys need. >> > > >> > > Thanks again and have a great one! >> > > Pavly Mikhael >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:19 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> >> wrote: >> > > That is quite some list! If we went into such detail (and we won't) >> we would be as big as Wikipedia. And in fact Wikipedia have their own >> "knowledge graph" called Wikidata.org that does go into many of these >> details. We are working out ways of combining it with Schema.org. >> > > >> > > That said, you are correct in particular to remind us that >> https://schema.org/PlaceOfWorship.only has dedicated subtypes for a few >> religions. Perhaps an additionalType property with >> https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q2031836 as its value would be a good fit? >> > > >> > > Dan >> > > >> > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2018, 08:45 Pavly Mikhael, <pavlym@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > Hello Everyone, >> > > >> > > I'm trying to create structured data for our church website and was >> looking for the following vocabulary in schema.org and could not find >> any of them: >> > > >> > > Nonprofit (Can be added under Organization) >> > > History >> > > HistoryOfCopticOrthodoxChurchOfAlexandria (Can be added under History) >> > > OrientalOrthodox >> > > OrthodoxChurch (Can be added under PlaceOfWorship) >> > > CopticOrthodoxChurchOfAlexandria (Can be added under OrientalOrthodox) >> > > Archdiocese >> > > Diocese >> > > Bishopric >> > > Monastery >> > > Monasticism >> > > Seminary >> > > Coptic (Can be added under Language) >> > > Religion >> > > Christianity (Can be added under Religion) >> > > Group >> > > EthnoreligiousGroup (Can be added under Group) >> > > Copts (Can be added under EthnoreligiousGroup) >> > > EthnicGroup >> > > Christian >> > > Icon >> > > SaintIcon (Can be added under Icon) >> > > CanonicalBook (Can be added under Book) >> > > LiturgicalBook (Can be added under Book) >> > > PrayerBook (Can be added under Book) >> > > Bible (Can be added under Book) >> > > BibleBook (Can be added under Bible) >> > > Chapter (Can be added under Bible) >> > > Verse (Can be added under Bible) >> > > Apostle (Can be added under Person) >> > > Deacon (Can be added under Person) >> > > SubDeacon (Can be added under Deacon) >> > > Reader (Can be added under Deacon) >> > > Chanter (Can be added under Deacon) >> > > Archdeacon (Can be added under Deacon) >> > > Cantor (Can be added under Person) >> > > Clergy (Can be added under Person) >> > > Priest (Can be added under Clergy) >> > > Hegomen (Can be added under Clergy) >> > > Bishop (Can be added under Person) >> > > Metropolitan (Can be added under Person) >> > > Pope (Can be added under Person) >> > > Layman (Can be added under Person) >> > > Monk (Can be added under Person) >> > > Nun (Can be added under Person) >> > > Saint (Can be added under Person) >> > > Martyr (Can be added under Person) >> > > ChurchFathers (Can be added under Person) >> > > Prophet (Can be added under Person) >> > > Prophecy >> > > Biography >> > > Council >> > > Heresy >> > > Faith >> > > Belief >> > > Doctrine >> > > Tradition >> > > Ministry >> > > Missionary (Can be added under Person) >> > > Spiritual >> > > SpiritualBeing >> > > Angel (Can be added under SpiritualBeing) >> > > ArchAngel (Can be added under SpiritualBeing) >> > > ChurchRite >> > > Dogma >> > > ChurchHymn >> > > ChurchChoir >> > > Song >> > > SpiritualSong (Can be added under Song) >> > > Praise (Can be added under Song) >> > > Prayer >> > > Psalm >> > > Fast >> > > Feast >> > > Sacrament >> > > Theology >> > > Liturgy >> > > >> > > Can you please add these if possible. >> > > >> > > Thanks and have a great one! >> > > Pavly Mikhael >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > - Mark >> >> > > -- > - Mark >
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2018 20:31:29 UTC