Re: proposal by Encyclopaedia Britannica

>
> >         For example, if a content provider offers an Article on an
> Event, both classes should be admissible and recognized by the semantic
> engine that reads the markup.  In the case of a Video showing Angkor Wat, a
> temple complex in Angkor, Cambodia, the subject is both a Place and a
> ManMadeObject (in this case a Temple) and the delivery format is Video.
> >
>

Angkor Wat is a building.  All buildings in Schema.org are currently
considered to be a http://schema.org/Place because of the definition:
"Entities that have a somewhat fixed, physical extension."

Places in schema.org have a location (also known as an address), but they
are not "A LOCATION" themselves.

(A non-realist viewpoint is that "a building is a location", but a realist
viewpoint which is what most of Schema.org conforms to, is that a "building
is a Place, which has a location (address)"

HTH, (everyone) :-)


I agree that there are some useful long tail domain items that Carmen and
team bring to light, but some of those need to be accumulated into
Schema.org Extensions and simple sub-types of existing classes in
Schema.org.  Like ArtisticSchool being a sub-type of
http://schema.org/School if anyone finds that particularly useful.

Overall, I think the best step forward would be the use of additionalType
for many of the types within the proposal from Encyclopaedia Britannica.
 And those proposed types could exist within their own linked vocabulary
for now.  http://schema.org/additionalType

-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>