- From: Roger Rohrbach <roger@ecstatic.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:01:15 -0700
- To: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>
- Cc: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>, public-schemaorg@w3.org
Martin, Phil, Thanks for providing context and references. I’ll absorb them before making any more inquiries/arguments. Roger > On Jun 1, 2018, at 5:34 AM, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all: > > I did not grasp all details of this discussion, and I think that as of today, schema:Event does not have too many properties that imply a potential commercial bias. > > But in general: If we take the GoodRelations data model for commerce in schema.org seriously, we can avoid any such confusion, because we will keep the description of the "Thing" separate from the description of any promise to grant or transfer rights on this "thing" for a specified compensation (e.g. a monetary amount). > > I understand that for simplifying mark-up, we are sometimes inclined to accept commercial properties directly attached to the entities, but I have argued for long that using a super-light schema:Offer entity attached to the thing and then putting the commercial properties thereto will keep schema.org cleaner and more maintainable, and ease the later usage of the data. > > See here for the underlying model, which is formally still at the heart of schema.org: > > http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Conceptual_model > > > BTW, I agree with Phil that the availability of properties that are applicable only in certain context should not be taken as a hint that the entity type itself had a respective bias in its definition. We would otherwise need lots of intermediate types that just increase the size of the vocabulary. And as long as it is thinkable for a volcano to have a fax machine, where is the conflict. Does putting a fax on Mt. Aetna invalidate it being a volcanoe? > > In a nutshell: Don't create a subtype "CommercialEvent", just provide an example that shows how to combine an event with a schema:Offer node for modeling commercial events. > > For respective patterns, a bit out of date in the details, see e.g. > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/tio/ns > > > Best wishes > Martin > > ----------------------------------- > martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de > mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp > > > > >> On 01 Jun 2018, at 14:42, Phil Barker <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 Type based on the properties of that type. Specifically, I wouldn't infer that 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 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 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 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, I've run a couple of W3C community groups. I would suggest first make sure that 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 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 for bibliographic use: >> >> • Schema.org: Part 1 - Fit For a Bibliographic Purpose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiijJj1v1bQ >> • Schema.org: Part 2 - Extending Potential and Possibilities 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/ ) >> 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 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 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), that “other W3C Community Groups exist that are focussed partially or entirely on schema.org improvements, e.g. health and medicine, sports,archives, libraries and bibliography, autos…” >>> >>> 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> 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 >>>> >>> >>> .................................................... >>> Allison Muri >>> Department of English >>> >>> Arts 418 >>> University of Saskatchewan >>> Saskatoon, SK, Canada >>> ph: 306.966.5503 >>> >> >> -- >> Phil Barker. http://people.pjjk.net/phil >> PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education. >> CETIS LLP: 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 >> > >
Received on Friday, 1 June 2018 21:01:39 UTC