- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:26:04 -0700
- To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
But what then is not an event? If all that matters to be an event is some vague notion of associated time and location (or maybe not even that) then just about everything is an event. My view is that shoehorning lots of things into vague classes also has decided costs for both producers and consumers of data. peter On 06/01/2018 06:11 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: > To put it shortly: When designing Web ontologies, we should only define such types and distinctions between types that are not trivial to reconstruct from the data by the consumer of the data. Adding new types to any ontology creates costs, for learning, marking up, maintaining data etc. So the benefit of a new type must justify the associated cost for all users in the entire ecosystem during the entire lifespan. If being a historic event can be inferred by a junior programmer's one-liner based on comparing the current date with the end-date of the event, then there is no need for an extra type. > > I think it is perfectly valid to use schema:Event for historic events, even though you cannot buy tickets for them. > > Best wishes > Martin > > > > >> On 31 May 2018, at 22:33, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Roger, >> >> Depends on what you are trying to do. >> >> I taking a stance that most of the time there's no need to tell a machine that something is historical if you can reconcile the entity before hand and provide data about that. >> >> Most machines will know and understand (if they are decently built and programmed) to know that "Battle of Gettysburg" is a historical event. >> There's no need to tell most machines that... >> >> HistoricalEvent: Battle of Gettysburg >> >> if you could possibly reconcile your entities (your welcome to use my community's latest OpenRefine against Wikidata for that) >> and instead of providing Strings...provide Things... >> >> HistoricalEvent: "Battle of Gettysburg >> sameAs: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33132 >> >> Machines can easily find out lots of information by parsing Wikipedia itself like Google does, if you provide a sameAs url, or perhaps even better a Wikidata or DBPedia url. >> >> Giving us a better example of what you are trying to do would be most appreciated by all. >> >> My hunch is that you don't so much care about "Battle of Gettysburg" but relations around it ? What are those relations that you trying to establish ? That it was partOf: American Civil War ? >> What else ? >> >> Help us and we can help you, >> -Thad >> >
Received on Friday, 1 June 2018 14:26:29 UTC