Re: Scores for head to head events

>From <http://schema.org/Action>

“An action performed”…”The execution of the action may produce a result”

I would suggest that winning the Booker prize *was* an action that
occurred, or was completed, though it might not have been previously
defined [by the eventual winner] as a potential action.


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

On 24 November 2015 at 14:47, Paul Kelly <paul@xmlteam.com> wrote:

> Are those outcomes really actions, though? A team sets out to win and acts
> accordingly but there’s no intention to lose. Somebody writes a book (to
> use schema.org’s "*John* wrote a book" example) but the action wasn’t
> directly to win the Booker prize. Also, I see below that this means
> distinguishing between the agent and the participant?
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Eleni Mikroyannidi <
> Eleni.Mikroyannidi@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering if we could make use of the Action concept for
> representing head to head actions/results. Schema.org already has the
> concept of WinAction, TieAction and LoseAction. In this case, a football
> WinAction could be modelled as:
> >
> > <!--  Liverpool won a football competition against Crystal Palace. -->
> > <script type="application/ld+json">
> > {
> >   "@context": "http://schema.org",
> >   "@type": "WinAction",
> >   "agent": {
> >     "@type": "SportsTeam",
> >     "name": "Liverpool",
> >     "@id": "https://dbpedia.org/resource/Liverpool_F.C."
> >   },
> >   "object": {
> >    "@type": "SportsEvent",
> >     "name": "Barclays Premier League Liverpool v Crystal Palace"
> >   },
> >  "result": "2-0",
> >  "agentScore": 2,
> >   "participantScore": 0,
> >   "participant": {
> >     "@type": "SportsTeam",
> >     "name": "Crystal Palace",
> >     "@id": "https://dbpedia.org/resource/Crystal_Palace_F.C."
> >   }
> > }
> > </script>
> >
> > The Action concept has the general https://schema.org/result
> predicate, which can be used within any Action. A SportsResult could be
> defined within that context.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Eleni
> >
> > On 23/11/2015 10:14, "Tom Grahame" <tom.grahame@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> For info and not intended to sway the conversation in any particular
> direction:
> >>
> >> home/awayCompetitor lifts from the Sport ontology:
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport#terms_homeCompetitor
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport#terms_awayCompetitor
> >>
> >> There’s a gist I did a while ago here:
> >> https://gist.github.com/tfgrahame/8974800
> >>
> >> Scoring gets hard when scores can be applied variously to events and/or
> competitors, we got stuck on this last time.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> From: Daniel Stieglitz <dstieglitz@stainlesscode.com>
> >> Date: Friday, 20 November 2015 16:25
> >> To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
> >> Cc: Paul Kelly <paul@xmlteam.com>, Jonathan Balls <
> Jonathan.Balls@bbc.co.uk>, "public-sport-schema@w3.org" <
> public-sport-schema@w3.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Scores for head to head events
> >> Resent-From: <public-sport-schema@w3.org>
> >> Resent-Date: Friday, 20 November 2015 16:26
> >>
> >>> Hi folks:
> >>>
> >>> SportsEvent also supports the SportsEvent-->competitor relationship,
> where competitor can be SportsTeam or Person. Oddly enough this seems to be
> the way homeTeam and awayTeam are also mapped which seems confusing (they
> can be Persons?)
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps homeTeam and awayTeam should be refactored out and replaced by
> the competitor relationship, where cardinality is enforced by subtypes
> (e.g., if SportsEvent is a FootballGame, competitor max cardinality is 2
> and competitor types are restricted to Team).
> >>>
> >>> For results I think a CompetitorResult object may be required (or
> CompetitorScore [subclass?]) that is then applied to the Event object.
> >>>
> >>> Of course the issue of tracking how the CompetitorScore might change
> over time is also a consideration.
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland <
> vtardif@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Paul Kelly <paul@xmlteam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Also, how general do we need to be? Are we going to draw a
> distinction between team events, head-to-head sports (boxing, fencing) and
> race-type events (F1, athletics, swimming)? Or do we want a general
> formation for all three of those types of competition (to use the north
> american sense of that word :)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the crux of the issue. To support events with more than two
> competitors, we will need more than a simple homeScore/awayScore model.
> With the Olympics coming up again, I think we should consider supporting
> these events sooner rather than later.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Vicki
> >>>>
> >>>> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------
> >>
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
> stated.
> >> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> >> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> >> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
> >> ---------------------
>
>
>