- From: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:20:42 +0200
- To: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Joe Duarte <songofapollo@gmail.com>, david.elie.raymond.christophe.ammouial@everis.com, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Pete Rivett <pete.rivett@adaptive.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
As for the choice of English: Wikipedia has faced similar challenges and uses this guideline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing#ENGLISH
In our case, it would mean that using British terminology is fine if the respective type is not very relevant in North America. I think that is the case with CampingPitch - it is very common of European campgrounds that rent out small, often numberes areas and offer them in a fashion similar to hotel offers.
Best wishes
Martin
-----------------------------------
martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de
mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp
> On 13 Jul 2018, at 06:51, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Want to make one last proposal if I may. On CampingPitch the issue isn't British vs American English, the broader issue is that space and time are infinitely divisible - regions of space and time can be made of smaller and smaller regions that can be described by the same name. Campsite is the first time Schema is encountering this phenomenon I believe.
>
> I think the desire is to distinguish the smaller regions one can rent:
>
> Campsite
> RentableCampsite
> OfficeSpace
> RentableOfficeSpace
> ParkingSpace
> RentableParkingSpace
> PlayArea
> RentablePlayArea
>
> I would actually prefer to not have CampingPitch at all and use MTEs, but from reading this thread it seems that approach has its problems.
>
> Does this approach, describing space as rentable, sound plausible to anybody?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> As others have mentioned...
>
> The reason that Schema.org would not want to maintain 6,500 language versions, is the same reason that we don't have 6,500 versions of these HTML tags
>
> <head>
> <title>
> <body>
>
> <cabeza>
> <titulo>
> <cuerpo>
>
> Schema.org syntax is absorbed by Machines 1st, Humans 2nd. Just like any other programming language or interoperable standard for machine consumption.
>
> Schema.org syntax is not a formatting syntax like CSS, but instead a web standard like HTML. And it took us a long time to get here and even longer to get JSON-LD propagated enough so that developers are now much more comfortable.
>
> Hope that helps,
> -Thad
> (the same guy who won't stop you or anyone from creating those 6499 other language versions of Schema.org...go for it ! , and we'll gladly add them into our repository !)
>
Received on Friday, 13 July 2018 06:21:09 UTC