Re: Additions to Schema.org

With reference to Quote.

See https://pending.schema.org/Quotation

~Richard.

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

On 10 August 2018 at 10:40, Hans Polak <info@polak.es> wrote:

> As Dan already wrote, PlaceOfWorship <https://schema.org/PlaceOfWorship>
> exists in Schema.org.
>
> I don't see how adding more vocabulary would improve schema.org... bearing
> in mind that PlaceOfWorship is used in between 10 and 100 sites.
>
> Having said that, Pavly, I think you can find higher level vocabulary that
> will help you map what you want to achieve. For instance: CreativeWork
> <https://schema.org/CreativeWork> (subtypes) can be used for songs and
> for the bible. Similarly, Organization <https://schema.org/Organization>
> can be a placeholder for ethnic information through the additionalType
> <https://schema.org/additionalType> property which exists in all things
> <https://schema.org/Thing>.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Cheers,
> Hans
>
> On 09/08/18 22:27, Pavly Mikhael wrote:
>
> 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 <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
>>
>
>