Re: ISSUE-17: schema.org has NGO, EducationalOrganization, SportsTeam, GovernmentOrganization but not Labo[u]r Union

Isn't the key question here how the possible encodings will be 
interpreted and displayed? The goal is not to mark up data, but to mark 
up data for some PURPOSE. While we cannot know a priori exactly how 
search engines will make use of the data (since that is on an 
evolutionary fast-track), it seems that for each proposal it would be 
key to get some kind of use case showing the intended goals for the 
marked up data.

kc

On 5/31/13 7:05 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Jumping in late: While I am completely fine with either adding or not adding a new type here, I again want to take the chance to stress that you can immediately use Wikipedia page names (lemmata) in the http://www.productontology.org/id/* namespace in combination with the additionalType property from schema.org for marking up types that are more specific than what schema.org currently defines. This is particularly true if you do not need any additional properties.
>
> So a trade union info page may contain this markup:
>
>
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html>
> <head>
>      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
>      <title>ACME Trade Union</title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization" itemid="#acme_union">
>      <link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Trade_union" />
>      <span itemprop="name">ACME Trade Union</span>
>      Product description:
>      <span itemprop="description">The ACME Trade Union represents the interest of ACME workers world-wide ...</span>
>
> ... other properties from http://schema.org/Organization go here ...
>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> As said earlier today: Don't be irritated by the "product" tag in www.productontology.org - it is fine to use with any physical or immaterial entity.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On May 9, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>> Kendall,
>>
>> I recorded this issue last year after you pointed out that schema.org
>> has various organizational types, but nothing for the class of things
>> that are 'Labour Unions'. This is a flaw I'd like to fix.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/17
>> https://twitter.com/kendall/status/210422142620286976
>>
>> I come from an English speaking country where people say "trade union"
>> rather than "labo[u]r union"; I don't have a good intuition for how
>> odd "trade union" might sound elsewhere. Do you (or others here) have
>> any thoughts or preferences on a good and intuitive name for this
>> concept? Schema.org uses US English when a choice is needed, but it's
>> good to aim at terms that are the same in as many variants of English
>> as possible.
>>
>> I'm not sure if there are subtle substantive differences between
>> 'labor union' and 'trade union'.
>>
>> In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union Wikipedia ("Labour union"
>> redirects here) has
>> "A trade union (British English—amalgamation is also used), labour
>> union (Canadian English) or labor union (American English) is an
>> organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common
>> goals such as protecting the integrity of its trade, achieving higher
>> pay, increasing the number of employees an employer hires, and better
>> working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains
>> with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file members)
>> and negotiates labour contracts (collective bargaining) with
>> employers. The most common purpose of these associations or unions is
>> "maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment".[1]"
>>
>> See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States
>>
>> Would "Trade Union" be workable to US-English ears? I have a mild
>> preference for it because it avoids the word "labor"/"labour", which
>> has two spellings.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>           http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 14:44:11 UTC