Re: YourSports vocabulary extension

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:

> +100 for the direction Gregg is taking this proposal.
>
> Personally I'd prefer the use of enumerations over specific sub-classes
> because I feel if we were to take the subclasses direction we'll be opening
> up Pandora's box. Take Organization and all of it's subclasses for example.
> This class is well on its way to becoming a never ending expanding list
> because someone somewhere one day decided it would be a good idea to add
> specific subclasses to it. Sub-classes which don't offer any new properties
> and IMHO only are starting to pollute the overall schema. And because of
> that decision also has little counter arguments to any request for a new
> subclass. To quote Aaron Bradley: "in for a penny, in for a pound", seems a
> valid statement in this context.
>
> I fear that if we don't take the enumeration route the entire Sports
> proposal will only turn out to be one giant headache as well.
>
> but...
>
> In the original thread Jason Douglas wrote: "Whether implementors choose
> to use Freebase, DBpedia, ESPN or any other source for those enumeration
> references is a separate question and one that I'm not convinced even needs
> to be answered by schema.org." (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Feb/0114.html)
>
> This is a statement I can't agree with. Maybe for 'insiders' it's clear
> when certain enumerations are better than others but the general web
> developer has absolutely no clue. And to be completely honest half the time
> I don't either and I've been reading every thread on this list for the last
> year. Also just look at all the confusion 'sameAs' and 'additionalType' are
> generating outside of this mailing list, and these properties are brand
> new. Imagine the chaos we'll get if an even broader audience starts to
> implement it. The issues that are arising with the Sports proposal
> apparently are beyond the scope of the proposal itself.
>
> Without a clear statement/explination from the sponsors of schema.orgabout how to choose the 'right' enumeration(s) and even more importantly,
> why one would even bother to go to all that trouble to find and implement
> them (because it IS very time consuming for the every day webdeveloper) I
> don't see a very big future for any form of enumeration or external
> reference.
>

I recall when Dan first started to talk about enumerations many months ago,
the idea was that schema.org would recommend a provider for a given
enumeration. Examples: for a list of sports, look in Freebase at this URL.
For a list of religions, look on wikidata at this URL. Not sure if that
still the plan, but keep in mind that enumerations are still in the works,
and slowly coming together on both ends (see for example the email about
Wikidata that Dan sent today).

Steph.


> Not for 'sameAs' and 'additionalType' nor for Classes which possibly can
> be served greatly by pointing to external sources. Especially from the
> sponsors point of view, after all it helps them understand the data so they
> can serve their customers better.
>
> So some sort of a 'ROI' or an idea about how the sponsors intend to
> process/use this type of data IS needed. For website owners to be able to
> make an informed decision on whether they should make the time, resources
> and money available to go so far with their markup. There has to be some
> sort of prospect what's in it for them. Or the vast majority of the world
> will never bother and keep on seeing see it as a waist of their time
> because they don't see the added value (and yes, that's my everyday
> experience when advising as an SEO Consultant). Just look at the percentage
> of markup there is in the search for Rich snippets and compare that to the
> percentage of schema.org that is used for extensive markup purposes. It's
> out of balance
>
> So please let's not overlook this side of schema.org and let's not say
> this isn't the right platform to discuss this, since there is no other
> platform to discuss this. Schema.org itself is driven by commercial
> organizations. Let's therefor also stop to think about the (financial)
> implications of what we all do/propose here at the public vocabs, for those
> who have to pick up the bill for implementing it. Let's do stop to think
> and discuss about how to get the rest of the world to consider marking
> their data up extensively or else who are we doing this all for?
>
> I therefor also agree with Gregg when he said: "this may be the right
> time to have a discussion on how extensible schema.org is meant to be." (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Feb/0099.html)
>
> I would happily participate in a general discussion about this (as I know
> others would as well). And it would be of incredible worth if the sponsors
> of schema.org could make any sort of statement in regards to the return
> value of marking up outside of nice snippets and undergoing the hassle of
> adding external enumerations and references. Which I'm sure will also
> greatly help the discussion about the Sports proposal.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:
>
>> To provide some more specific contrast to the previous Sports Vocabulary
>> Proposal [1], I've posted information on the type hierarchy I've been
>> developing for YourSports.com [2] (also on the WebSchemas/Sports wiki page
>> [3]).
>>
>> Although much of the vocabulary supports YourSports' specific business
>> model, the class hierarchy is broadly similar to that in the previous
>> proposal. Where it really breaks with it, though, is in the use of
>> enumerations when describing a SportsTeam, in contrast to specific
>> sub-classes for each sports discipline, and in the use of a Contribution
>> class (type of schema:Action) to describe the roles played by individuals
>> in an organization or event. This is in keeping with previous comments I've
>> made to that proposal.
>>
>> This is offered to help forward the dialog towards the creation a
>> collaborative Sports Vocabulary proposal, is not intended for straight
>> adoption. There have been a number of comments by myself, as well as
>> others, on the problems with over-relying on subclassing when extending
>> schema.org, or any other vocabulary, particularly when it comes to
>> adding information that is better expressed as enumerations in a common
>> namespace (e.g., DBpedia). In this proposal, it goes for specific
>> definitions of different types of sports teams, the roles played by
>> individuals on that team, and the organization of that team using a
>> hierarchy of events (seasons, games, etc.) as well as the membership of
>> that team within some other organizational hierarchy (league, division,
>> ...).
>>
>> More specifically, I would be happy if these principles were used in a
>> future version of [1].
>>
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>
>> P.S., contributions are my own, and I have a consulting relationship with
>> YourSports. YourSports is a social network built on the relationship people
>> have with sports teams, and each other, although it's in a closed beta at
>> this point. Ask me if you'd like an invite.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/images/6/60/2014SportsVocabularyProposalv2.pdf
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/images/a/a8/YourSportsTypeHierarchy.pdf
>> [3] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Sports
>>
>
>


-- 
Steph.