Re: Historical events

Webfeet made a good point about the need for a more general approach to
historical significance. A pattern like the following might work:

*Thing*
*    Book*
*        HistoricallySignificantBook*
*    Car*
*        HistoricallySignificantCar*
*    Event*
*        HistoricallySignificantEvent*
*    HistoricallySignificantThing*
*        HistoricallySignificantBook*
*        HistoricallySignificantCar*
*        HistoricallySignificantEvent*
*        HistoricallySignificantMovie*
*        HistoricallySignificantOrganization*
*        HistoricallySignificantPainting*
*        HistoricallySignificantPerson*
*        HistoricallySignificantPlace*
*    Movie*
*        HistoricallySignificantMovie*
*    Organization*
*        HistoricallySignificantOrganization*
*    Painting*
*        HistoricallySignificantPainting*
*    Person*
*        HistoricallySignificantPerson*
*    Place*
        *HistoricallySignificantPlace*


So there would be two ways you could describe an event as being
historically significant:


   - type: HistoricallySignificantEvent
   - type: Event, HistoricallySignificantThing

Deciding between "historically significant" or "historically important"
could be debated too though:

historically significant vs historically important
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=historically+significant%2Chistorically+important&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chistorically%20significant%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chistorically%20important%3B%2Cc0>


Anthony

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:05 PM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Allison,
>
> You might also just check the recently revised owl-time ontology from w3c
> [1] which uses terminology from Allen in a formalisation of relationships
> between time-intervals. Terms like interval, position, duration, instant
> are suggested.
>
> Simon Cox
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Muri, Allison <allison.muri@usask.ca>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 17 June 2018 8:25:30 PM
> *To:* schema.org Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: Historical events
>
> Hello again (and a very big thank you) to everyone contributing to this
> fascinating dialogue,
>
> I went away and thought some more about all the comments and advice and
> debate, and I understand the concerns/doubts raised by various people about
> a new type HistoricalEvent or Occurrent.
>
> I think I now have a workable starting point from which to go away and
> look into setting up a W3C Community Group in order to see if there is a
> community of interest in using schema.org markup as follows to reflect
> certain kinds of historical significance and additional specific types
> under Event.
>
> https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/HistoricalEntity as a new that could
> be used on its own, or with other types to indicate that it has historical
> significance—there are a few examples here (thanks, webfeet for suggesting
> something like HistoricalSignificance to apply more broadly, and to
> Richard, for explaining the Multi Type Entity (MTE) feature). This might
> potentially be useful for a wide range of websites, from tourism to museums
> to literature and history. The reason for “Historical” and not “Historic”
> is that *historic* suggests “great” or “very important” events, places,
> artifacts etc., while *historical* suggests that the thing is associated
> with the study or learning of, or interest in, history.
>
> https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/Event with some more specific types
> (no examples yet). I’ve added period
> <https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/period> as a property to Event to see
> how this would work. It seems it is valuable as a property, but I will get
> advice on whether that is a good idea or not.
>
> https://sdo-historical.appspot.com/Period as a new type.
>
> Cheers,
> Allison
>
> ....................................................
> Allison Muri
> Department of English
>
> Arts 418
> University of Saskatchewan
> Saskatoon, SK, Canada
> ph: 306.966.5503
>
>