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

Ali

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Ali Watters
<ali.watters@creativelive.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

Yes, I've created an example at [1] for you. This example is in RDFa, but I
don't see why it would not work with microdata.


>
> 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?
>

you can discuss/request them here on this mailling list, the
schema.orgsponsors are listening.

Stéphane.

[1]
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.openspring.net%2Fnode%2F11


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Steph.