Discussion topic: How to improve understanding and application of schema.org

Hello,


I’m inviting discussion about how to improve understanding and application
of schema.org more widely.  This thread is a fork of a long comment I made
earlier, which some felt deserved a dedicated thread.  I won’t repeat all
the points I made before, but you can read them here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg/2018Jun/0102.html


Question 1: Can we improve general understanding of how the vocabulary
works, especially for those who are not active on a weekly basis shaping
its decisions?  Sometimes people find certain terminology confusing, and
not self-describing.  Coverage of different entity types can vary, with
some detailed and well-documented, and others not detailed or
well-documented.  Can the current terminology be improved or rationalized
in a non-disruptive way?  Should nomenclature used in creating terms or
definitions be standardized, or defined by a common dictionary of
definitions?  Can the documentation be improved to reduce ambiguities,
provide better guidance in the absence of examples, provide best practices
for quality, and help new users understand how pieces fit together to
support novel applications?


Question 2: Can we improve cross-domain application of schema.org, so that
different types of entities can be compared?  Much of schema.org’s
development has focused on the needs of sector- or domain-specific data
users.  But many potential applications (voice interaction, learning,
games) can take advantage of schema.org to compare shared properties of
different kinds of entities, such as the speed of a machine verse an animal.
To do that requires that properties be comparable across different entity
types, which is sometimes difficult to take advantage of when properties
are closely tied to specific entity types.    How can entity and property
coverage or usage be improved to benefit general and comparative
information description and application?


I welcome your feedback on these questions.  Please feel to challenge any
assumptions I’ve asserted that you don’t feel aren't accurate.