Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
GitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
Expand domain of schema:about property #1361
I propose that the domain be expanded to include Event and subTypes of Event. Throwing a few quick examples out:
A full example:
What do folks think of this proposal? I can work up more formal examples if there is agreement it's worth the effort.
Also, are there other types that would benefit from inheriting the about property? I can foresee a desire to describe a schema:Organization in this manner:
I agree - let's do it for Event. For People, Organization, Place I would continue to do this indirectly via relations to entities where "about" directly makes more sense. For Action in the past-tense sense, there is perhaps a case for "about" since actions are really kinds of events, even if we didn't reflect that truth into the type hierarchy. For Product, we could go either way. It might be more compelling if there were more of an ecosystem of usage around "about" pointing into existing controlled vocabularies.
My comments to @EricAxel on mailing list:
In the past, I've voted to stick 'about' right onto schema.org/Thing :) any Thing can be about anyThing :)
A few that I see with my quick 1 minute eyes :
http://schema.org/TelevisionChannel - home improvement, gardening, etc - HGTV
and so many more I forgotten about.
@RichardWallis and Richard don't just +1 :) (we don't know what your +1ing about) I want to really hear your Librarian voice saying ...
'about: should always be constrained to the notion of a Thing having a subject. Anything more than a Thing being about a subject(s), then we ought to discover what that 'subject' alternative would be. I.E. genre, applied in field of science, activism area, etc. And create nice good properties for those.'
@thadguidry sorry for 'just +1ing' ;-)
To expand I go along with the idea that there are certain types of thing (CreativeWorks, Events, communications) that can be 'about' (have a subject of) something else. But saying a Person or an Organisation is about another thing is stretching the generally understood meaning of the word about. There may be very similar, yet sufficiently different, terms (scope, focus, mission,...) that could be introduced as being applicable in these areas.