- From: Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:41:20 -0400
- To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABJSzUv2c2U3KhxU3G1jC9TggtSQ8O4Zy+YOFYpJ8J7w-FCBkw@mail.gmail.com>
Can folks live with the proposal with the following changes? - remove eventCategory; it seems controversial and we can wait to see where the EnumConcept conversation lands. - remove previousEndDate, to avoid schema complexity around repeated pairs of previousStartDate/previousEndDate. - keep EventStatus and ActionStatus separate, so they can meet their separate needs separately. Thanks, Justin On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com> wrote: > Thanks Aaron and Ian for the comments. My replies: > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > > While I don't find it objectionable per se, I find the addition of >> eventCategory a curious approach, and the notion of adding one thing to >> "de-emphasize" another very odd indeed. As I think of use cases for this >> schema, this approach - by dint of obviously moving from something >> structured to something less structured - will result in lower-confidence >> results for precise queries (e.g. "concerts in las vegas between nov. 1 and >> nov. 10") >> > .... > >> This all bleeds somewhat into the concurrent SKOS discussion, IMO. Would >> eventCategoy still be useful if there was a more general mechanism for >> denoting topicality? I don't think so. >> > > The current event subtypes don't support the notion of an event being in > multiple categories. So I think it's important to make category a property. > There isn't a clean way to make eventCategory use the existing Event > subtypes as an enumerated range... and having a new set of enumerated types > alongside the existing subtypes would be really confusing. That's why I > went with a simple Text range for the new property. If anyone has a better > alternative, I would love to hear it. > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Ian Niles <ianiles@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> 1. Should eventStatus be merged with the proposed actionStatus enum? No, >> I don't think so - although they are superficially similar, the meaning is >> quite different since the person conceptually responsible for the status is >> an event organizer on the one hand, and an end user on the other. We're >> really trying to model the kind of info that would appear on, say, a >> Ticketmaster concert page. (Potentially the value of eventStatus should be >> an enum rather than text, though.) >> >> <ian> I’m afraid I don’t follow this. First, “actionStatus” and >> “eventStatus” are not only similar, they’re almost identical, and clearly >> we want to simplify the representation whenever possible. Second, I have >> no idea what “conceptually responsible” means here, but presumably >> action/event statuses in Schema.org will be entered in the same way as all >> of the other elements of the schema, viz. by end users, by programs, by web >> masters, etc. >> > Let me try to convince you. schema.org/Event is used by tens of thousands > of websites (newspapers, venues, bands, etc.) to promote gatherings in > place and time that people can come out to attend. The eventStatus field > will be used to semantically annotate when the promoter has cancelled or > postponed the event. By contrast, Actions are "verbs", describing > activities from the point of view of the end user -- actions like playing a > song, buying a shirt, sharing a link, or attending an event -- all very > different from promoting an event. The actionStatus semantically refers to > when the *user* will perform the action; the eventStatus semantically > refers to changes an *organizer* has made to the scheduling of an event. > (Indeed, several of the eventStatus values, such as "postponed" and > "rescheduled", don't make sense for actionStatus.) Merging these two types > is a false economy with little practical benefit. > >> ** >> >> 2. Should previousStartDate and previousEndDate be modeled differently, >> because there's a pairing problem if an event is rescheduled multiple >> times? I don't think that case is common enough to warrant a more complex >> model. Most often there is only a startDate, which makes it unproblematic >> to repeat previousStartDate.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> <ian>I don’t follow this either. There are many cases of events being >> postponed more than once. </ian> >> > I don't think it's worth the modeling complexity to capture a whole > history of previous start/end date pairs for a multiply rescheduled event. > With markup, it's really important to keep the model as simple and flat as > possible. How about this alternative: we remove previousEndDate from the > proposal, and include only previousStartDate (which of course can be > repeated without ambiguity). That will cover the overwhelming majority of > cases of postponed events, including multiply postponed events, and satisfy > the main use case for the field, which is to match up the newly rescheduled > event with its previous version so the consuming site doesn't create an > incorrect dupe event. > > Thanks, > Justin > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 23:41:50 UTC