+1 here - very much "good enough for now!"
This change obviates the need to modify the more specific type VideoGame,
as the definition of Game now encompasses non-RPG video games.
The new definition is also flexible enough that it will support future
development of the Game schema as required/desired - both for additional
sub-types ("CardGame") and additional Game properties ("equipment").
"The game was ne'er so fair, and I am done."
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> On 17 November 2014 20:57, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
> wrote:
> > +1 to a more generic description.
> >
> > I don't see the point in getting overly specific with the role-playing
> part.
> > Solitaire is a game where numberOfPlayers is 1. We don't necessarily
> need to
> > limit the type to items which use all of the properties.
>
> Ok, see http://sdo-venkman.appspot.com/docs/releases.html#videogames
> and http://sdo-venkman.appspot.com/Game updated.
>
> - the release summary mentions the Game type and its dual super-types
> - we link both to the issues list entry,
> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/issues/169
>
> The new text is: "The Game type represents things which are games.
> These are typically rule-governed recreational activities, e.g.
> role-playing games in which players assume the role of characters in a
> fictional setting."
>
> This tries to strike a balance between vague generality and the
> RPG-oriented specifics from the types initial focus. I'm happy to
> tweak and refine this but at some point we have to say "good enough
> for now". However we can keep talking here and in Github and evolve
> the description further after this release goes live.
>
> Do we have a rough consensus?
>
> Dan
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 17:52:05 UTC