Re: Events -- online -- how to markup?

Thanks for the links and the suggestion.

I'm specifically dealing with Events (training courses) that have a
physical limited attendance number (eg. ~10) and an unlimited number of
online attendees through streaming. We don't want to publicize a physical
address as those 10 places are preassigned.

Putting a uri or "online" in address seems wrong, though for the short term
whatever gets validated will have to do. Stephanie; does "Online" validate
for you?

A field/property that indicates that Event is; online only | online and
physical | physical only -- makes sense to me -- Aaron I think that's your
option 2.b?

How do changes to the spec get requested?







On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a discussion of online events in December that looked at
> precisely these issues; see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Dec/0032.html
>
> Without repeating everything I said there, I think two things stand out in
> regard to online events:
>
> (1) Event properties inadequate for describing online events
>
> The properties you can currently declare for schema.org/Event and more
> specific Event types don't enable you to express important properties
> associated with an online event.  In short, useful information about online
> events often fall into categories that can readily be defined by properties
> of CreativeWork.  (Sometimes this is true of brick-and-mortar events as
> well; for example, it's anything but uncommon for events to be reviewed
> online, but because "review" isn't a property of Event, there's no way, for
> example, to point to a URL that is a review of that event.  Aside from
> seemingly being conceived of to express information about events occurring
> in a physical location, the Event type also seems to have been focused on
> upcoming rather than past events.  Another example is that there's no way
> of linking published conference proceedings to the EducationEvent or
> BusinessEvent from which they were derived.)
>
> (2) A new Event type is worth considering, but...
>
> As others have noted, the Event property location is required by data
> consumers such as Google.  While that doesn't directly impact the schema,
> it does suggest that a new Event type ("OnlineEvent" or "VirtualEvent")
> could data consumers more readily differentiate between brick-and-mortar
> and virtual events.  However, this would rob webmasters of the benefits of
> using the more specific Event types already defined; it may well be that
> the addition of new properties (accessible by all Event types) might keep
> this simpler.
>
> The issues that make Event problematic for online events can brought into
> focus by looking at Google Hangouts, which are very much virtual events.
> For example, here's a typical music hangout:
> https://plus.google.com/events/cdrj5poa53gsjm0qclc9aeeaki8
>
> All of the properties of MusicEvent are applicable here (the url property
> being that of the above).  But, on one hand, the oft-required property
> "location" is not applicable within the confines of the expected types
> Place or PostalAddress.  On the other hand, the video that appears on this
> event page can't be described with the current properties of MusicEvent
> (and, ironically, UserPlusOne can't be used to declare the number of +1s
> recorded for this event, even though this is a type of interactionCount - a
> property of UserInteraction, which is a more specific type of Event!).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet <
> scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Ali Watters <
>> ali.watters@creativelive.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> When marking up events what is considered best practice for events that
>>> can be attended online?
>>>
>>> Events appears to be requiring a physical location via Place.
>>>
>>> Example
>>>
>>>
>>>    1.   <div itemprop="location" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Place">
>>>
>>>
>>>    2.     <a itemprop="url" href="wells-fargo-center.html">
>>>
>>>
>>>    3.     Wells Fargo Center
>>>    4.     </a>
>>>    5.     <div itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress">
>>>
>>>
>>>    6.       <span itemprop="addressLocality">Philadelphia</span>,
>>>
>>>
>>>    7.       <span itemprop="addressRegion">PA</span>
>>>    8.     </div>
>>>    9.   </div>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would omitting address and just including url be appropriate?
>>>
>>> Using google's data highlighter address is listed as required -- how
>>> closely does the data highlighter match the spec?
>>>
>> Personally I usually use a string (e.g. "Online") as value for location,
>> but I'm also curious to hear if there is a better way to do this.
>>
>> Steph.
>>
>
>