Re: Eurocentrism, incorrect unit abbreviations, and proprietary Royalist Engish (sic) terms

I believe that those that came up with the Type names Campground
<https://schema.org/Campground> and CampingPitch
<https://schema.org/CampingPitch> deserve some credit for not using
‘campsite’ in their naming.

Laying aside for the moment those that are urging the restructuring the
whole area, the argument seems to be balanced between those that believe
Campground <https://schema.org/Campground> should have been named *Campsite*,
and those that believe CampingPitch <https://schema.org/CampingPitch> should
have been named *Campsite*.   To my mind, equally disappointing the
proponents of both sides of an argument is a good sign of a pragmatic
compromise.

Taking a look at the respective descriptions in the latest Pull Request
(#2003) <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/2003>:

CampGround:
A camping site, campsite, or *Campground* is a place used for overnight
stay in the outdoors, typically containing individual *CampingPitch*
 locations.

CampingPitch:

A *CampingPitch* is an individual place for overnight stay in the outdoors,
typically being part of a larger camping site, or *Campground*.


Although it may not be using your usual terms for these things, are we
saying that it is not clear what each is describing?

As others have said Schema.org it there to add practical benefit to those
wishing to describe their things and concepts in a way that will be
understood by data consumers such as the search engines.

Pragmatically,  I think it is time for many of us to agree that although
not ideal, we can live with the proposed update.

If it was not then possible to describe an individual place where you can
put your tent, possibly in a place that contains many individual places to
put tents, it would be a different matter.

~Richard.


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

On 13 July 2018 at 08:38, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's the same as the earlier structure I proposed but with Individual
> renamed to Rentable, typical usage would be a campground with many
> rentable campsites. It compares to https://schema.org/docs/hotels.html in
> the following way Dan:
>
> Place
>     Accommodation
>         RentableCampsite
>         Room
>             HotelRoom
>     Campsite
>         Campground
>         RentableCampsite
>     LocalBusiness
>         LodgingBusiness
>             Campground
>             Hotel
>
> Organization
>     LocalBusiness
>         LodgingBusiness
>             Campground
>             Hotel
>
>
> I'm from Australia and live in California and in my experience the
> numbered areas are referred to as campsites. Here is a government page that
> uses "campsite" in this way many times, even referring to a more specific
> type of campsite - a family campsite ("Family campsites accommodate up to
> eight (8) people.", www.parks.ca.gov/camping).
>
> But anyway like I said, it's not about a preference for British or
> American English, it's about how to approach regions of space or time when
> larger regions can be made of smaller regions describable using the same
> term.
>
> How does it break the GoodRelations model Martin? In any case I'm not
> proposing having GTIN at the level of Thing but it would be a fantastic
> approach anyway, it would be similar to what we currently have with
> faxNumber at the level of Place. But I know Product isn't going anywhere so
> don't worry even I would hate to open that can of worms right now.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:10 AM Webfeet <schema@webfeet.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/18 17:09, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>
>> > Re more complicated:
>> > The concept of MTEs is a bit more difficult to understand, some tools
>> will not validate data properly, Microdata has non proper support for MTEs,
>> and the approach for MTES varies by syntax (Microdata, RDFa, JSON-LD).
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, 21:54 Anthony Moretti, <anthony.moretti@gmail.com
>> <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > ... 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.
>>
>> On 13/07/18 08:04, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> > How does that compare with the pattern in
>> > https://schema.org/docs/hotels.html ?
>>
>> https://schema.org/docs/hotels.html does include a statement that:
>>
>>     The markup for MTE's is very simple:
>>
>> and indeed the example there is nice, tidy and straightforward.
>>
>> I see that this doesn't address the tools/validation issues - but
>> Multiple Inheritance and MTE's are there (and long established?) and, to
>> this particular "Interested Observer", remarkably powerful.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>     Webfeet
>>
>>
>>
>>