Re: Historical events

I think the problem comes down to the fact that we are talking about two separate and distinct definitions of “Event.”

The OED provides these:

Event (1): an occurrence and related senses; something that happens or takes place, esp. something significant or noteworthy; an incident, an occurrence.

Event (2): a planned or scheduled public, social, or sporting occasion.

The Schema.org<http://Schema.org> class as described is entirely congruent with definition 2, a different beast entirely from event as in definition 1.

So, as an exercise, consider using the class “Occurrent” (defined in OED as a thing that occurs, happens, or takes place; an event, an incident) to distinguish from the established schema.org<http://schema.org> use of “Event.”

Here is a sketch: http://grubstreetproject.net/markup/Occurrent.html

For those of you doing work with historical records and documents, would something like this be useful?

Cheers,
- Allison


On Jun 1, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com<mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:

Yes, schema.org<http://schema.org> types might be somehow different from ontology classes.
However, the question still remains as to what schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event> is supposed
to be used for and, more importantly, not used for.


There are 32 properties defined for schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event>.  At least 24 of them
are suitable only for meetings or performances.  So it is quite
understandable that producers and consumers of schema.org<http://schema.org> information might
think that schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event> should only be used for these kinds of things.

The text description on the page http://schema.org/Event also seems to be
for meetings or performances with its examples, its use of "certain", and
its talk about ticketing.  So again it is quite understandable that
producers and consumers of schema.org<http://schema.org> information might think that
schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event> should only be used for these kinds of things.


A better setup would be to have one or more different schema.org<http://schema.org> types for
performances and meetings where the properties for them could be defined.
Then schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event> could be a general type encompassing these types as
well as types for historical events and other kinds of events.  It may be
that this cannot be done because it would be too much of a break with
tradition, in which case a better textual description for schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event>
would certainly help, but a better tradition-preserving way to go might be
to give schema.org/Event<http://schema.org/Event> a supertype that would encompass events that are
not meetings or performances.


peter


On 06/01/2018 08:06 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
Thanks Phil for the name check and pointers to presentations and posts.

Chairing the Schema Bib Extend <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/> &
Schema Architypes <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/> groups, and
participating in several others; this discussion on the suitability, or not,
of Schema types and properties for a specific domain, or use case, are very
familiar.

Some of this comes from a subtle difference between a domain specific, often
constraining /ontology (classes, attributes)/, and a /vocabulary/ of terms
(types and properties) to describe /things, /such as Schema.org<http://Schema.org>.  As I say
this difference is subtle and the subject of philosophical discussions
beyond the scope of the particular concerns in this thread.

One spinoff of this however is the practical difference between the
definition of a /Class/ and the description of a [Schema.org<http://Schema.org>] Type such as
Event <http://schema.org/Event>.  The former tends to constrain usage, the
latter provides guidance to potential usage.

If the current description of Event contained a few extra words, I’m sure
this discussion thread would have a slightly different focus:

   An event happening at a certain time */past or future/*and
   location */physical or virtual/*, such as a concert, lecture,
   */meeting/*, festival, or historical event. Ticketing information may be
   added via the offers property. Repeated events may be structured as
   separate Event objects.


With such a description, markup such as this would be acceptable:

1. {
2.   "@context":"http://schema.org",
3.   "@type":"Event",
4.   "location":{
5.     "@type":"Place",
6.     "name":"Runnymede",
7.     "sameAs":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede>"
8.   },
9.   "name":"Magna Carta",
10.   "startDate":"1215-06-15",
11.

12.   “sameAs":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta>",
13.

14.


15. }

Proposals to adjust descriptions of terms in Schema.org<http://Schema.org> are not uncommon.
This brings me to the question of proposing a new type of /HistoricalEvent/.
My question being, what is special about a historical event - other than it
being [potentially a long time] in the past.
Also discussed here is how, with the current definition of ISO 8601, you
define open ended and other less common time periods. I think the previously
referenced movements around that area should solve those problems.
Finally, I believe there is an issue with /Event/ and its subtypes where it
is difficult to describe time periods too vague to usefully use the
combination of startDate, endDate & duration. Periods like “The Dark Ages”,
“The Bronze Age”, etc.  Maybe a new HistoricalPeriod type would be
appropriate, not sure, maybe one or two extra properties would do it - I am
open to suggestions.
A final general comment, to those who are uncomfortable with the way
properties are lumped into Schema types to cover many generic use cases, All
properties are optional. If your Volcano does not have a fax number, there
is no need to define it. If Ticketmaster did not offer tickets to the
signing of the Magna Carta, there is no need to describe the offer. Using
the /Event/Type in markup only infers that the entity you are describing has
taken place, or will do, at a known, or unknown location. It is the
selection of a subset of available properties that then starts to refine
that meaning.
~Richard


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

On 1 June 2018 at 12:42, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
<mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:

   Hello all, I've been following this discussion with interest, and can't
   resist jumping in now.

   Allison, I wouldn't read too much in to the semantics of a schema.org
   <http://schema.org> Type based on the properties of that type.
   Specifically, I wouldn't infer that schema.org/Event
   <http://schema.org/Event> is a commercial event just because the Event
   type has properties that are relevant only to commercial events.
   Schema.org is generally 'lumping' in its approach to classifying,
   lumping stuff together rather than creating fine distinctions; put this
   together with the inheritance hierarchy of schema.org
   <http://schema.org> Types and you get such oddities as fax numbers for
   volcanoes.

   My own 2p-worth is that the defining feature of a schema.org/Event
   <http://schema.org/Event> is that has a time and a location (and that
   the place can be abstract, like the Internet for webinars).

   I think a big change like moving the commercial properties out of Event
   into a subtype that sits alongside Historical Event would break too much
   of the existing data. Consequently, I think a type for Historical Events
   (i.e. events of historical significance, used as reference points in for
   other events, not just any old past event) would probably sit in
   schema.org <http://schema.org> as a subtype of Event, and inherit all
   those 'commercial' properties from Event. FWIW, I think WW2 would be a
   fine as an example of such an event.

   Also, I think there may be a case for something like a Named Period
   type. The Victorian Age, Paleocene Epoch would be examples. And yes,
   "WW2 era" could be a named period (if post-war and pre-war are, you kind
   of need something for the bit in between).

   I am not sure whether you would need both Historical Event and Named
   Period, but I think they might facilitate slightly different types of
   statement (something and Historical Event X were contemporary; something
   was a consequence of Historical Event Y, something happened during the
   Named Period Z [but wasn't part of it in an event/sub-event way]).


   As for extending schema.org <http://schema.org>, I've run a couple of
   W3C community groups. I would suggest first make sure that schema.org
   <http://schema.org> is the best vocabulary for this type of information,
   e.g. by thinking about use cases that fall within the scope of its
   mission. This thread could be the start of this. Then raise an issue on
   the schema.org <http://schema.org> github issue tracker if you think
   there is anything that is unaddressed. Setting up a W3C community group
   is straightforward and worth doing if you have complex set of use cases
   and a need to build some sort of community consensus around how to
   address them. Then you just need to recruit participants and steer the
   discussions around a coherent resolution of meeting your use cases--that
   can be more of a challenge.

   Richard Wallis has written & presented a lot about extending schema,
   perhaps most usefully in this context would be his presentation about
   extend schema.org <http://schema.org> for bibliographic use:

     * Schema.org: Part 1 - Fit For a Bibliographic Purpose
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiijJj1v1bQ
       <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiijJj1v1bQ>
     * Schema.org: Part 2 - Extending Potential and Possibilities
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKHw3UsD3r8
       <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKHw3UsD3r8>

   (He has also written a 3-part series of blog posts on the technical side
   https://dataliberate.com/2016/02/10/evolving-schema-org-in-practice-pt1-the-bits-and-pieces/
   <https://dataliberate.com/2016/02/10/evolving-schema-org-in-practice-pt1-the-bits-and-pieces/>
   )

   Hope this helps, Phil

   On 31/05/18 21:07, Muri, Allison wrote:
   I think, respectfully, Thad, that you might not be understanding what
   is needed. I would not really have a strong desire to use sameAs,
   myself. This isn’t about “too much work,” really. What I am trying to
   do, and I might be inferring correctly that Roger is, too, is to have a
   simple schema.org <http://schema.org> markup that addresses events
   other than commercial events. That would be either to have Event as a
   category under which commercial events and historical events are
   subcategories, or have Occurence or some such category.

   I am curious about Peter Patel-Schneider’s concern “about
   stretching schema.org/Event <http://schema.org/Event> to cover … things
   like WWII whose location is certainly not ‘certain’, or even
   anything that is not the kind of event that has performers and
   attendees.” Why is that?

   I see, when I read about the Community Group and Steering Group
   (http://schema.org/docs/about.html#cgsg
   <http://schema.org/docs/about.html#cgsg>), that “other W3C Community
   Groups exist that are focussed partially or entirely on schema.org
   <http://schema.org> improvements, e.g. health and medicine
   <https://www.w3.org/community/schemed/>, sports
   <https://www.w3.org/community/sport-schema/>,archives
   <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/>, libraries and bibliography
   <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/>, autos
   <https://www.w3.org/community/gao/>…”

   I wonder if there is someone on this list who is knowledgeable about
   these other groups and could provide some information about what one
   might do if one wanted to improve on markup for, say, history and culture?

   - Allison



   On May 31, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
   <mailto: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
   <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


   ....................................................
   Allison Muri
   Department of English

   Arts 418
   University of Saskatchewan
   Saskatoon, SK, Canada
   ph: 306.966.5503


   --

   Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
   PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;
   information systems for education.
   CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
   innovation in education technology.

   PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
   number SC569282.
   CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
   England number OC399090





....................................................
Allison Muri
Department of English

Arts 418
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
ph: 306.966.5503