Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expand domain of schema:about property #1361

Closed
EricAxel opened this issue Sep 12, 2016 · 13 comments
Closed

Expand domain of schema:about property #1361

EricAxel opened this issue Sep 12, 2016 · 13 comments
Assignees

Comments

@EricAxel
Copy link
Contributor

@EricAxel EricAxel commented Sep 12, 2016

Hi All,

I'm opening this issue to discuss expanding the domain of schema:about. Currently, that domain is limited to CreativeWork and CommunicateAction.

I propose that the domain be expanded to include Event and subTypes of Event. Throwing a few quick examples out:

A full example:
I've experimented with this idea, marking up this BusinessEvent, which covers multiple topics:
http://edw2016.dataversity.net/
The result is visible here: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/0/?url=http://edw2016.dataversity.net/#url=http%3A%2F%2Fedw2016.dataversity.net%2F

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:

The World Food Program is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition

Cheers,
--Eric

@RichardWallis
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardWallis RichardWallis commented Sep 12, 2016

This is a repeat of issue (#1296) which I have closed in favour of this one as you have included more detail.

@rvguha
Copy link
Contributor

@rvguha rvguha commented Sep 12, 2016

Sounds reasonable to me.

guha

@vholland
Copy link
Contributor

@vholland vholland commented Sep 13, 2016

The Event use case makes sense to me. I am not convinced that "about" works on Organization.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Sep 13, 2016

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.

@danbri danbri self-assigned this Sep 13, 2016
@RichardWallis
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardWallis RichardWallis commented Sep 13, 2016

+1

@thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor

@thadguidry thadguidry commented Sep 13, 2016

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 :)
But that was deemed overkill. I like killing things I guess. :)
In general, and a few folks swayed my mind into conciseness, having 'about' available on Types where it makes common sense for that Type in the wild is usually a best practice.
So if you have more than just Event that you feel 'about' or 'aboutness' is a common occurrence that your seeing, then let's expand into those domains as well.

A few that I see with my quick 1 minute eyes :

http://schema.org/TelevisionChannel - home improvement, gardening, etc - HGTV
http://schema.org/JobPosting - industry=gaming, skills=machine learning, about=Biological Systems
http://schema.org/ReservationPackage - I recall folks in Travel industry wanting 'about' to help sell their tour packages in niche markets like 'ecology', 'space', etc.
http://schema.org/Organization and http://schema.org/NGO and probably any sub Organization types we have like GovernmentOrganization - In Freebase we had a really cool 'aboutness' property called 'scope' or something, forgot what it was actually called, to note what an organization is involved in, not just its naics code or industry. Like PETA would have a scope of 'animal rights'.

and so many more I forgotten about.

@thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor

@thadguidry thadguidry commented Sep 13, 2016

@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.'

@RichardWallis
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardWallis RichardWallis commented Sep 13, 2016

@thadguidry sorry for 'just +1ing' ;-)

I was commenting on @danbri's "let's do it for Event", having already commented on the issue I closed in favour of this one (#1296)

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.

@thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor

@thadguidry thadguidry commented Sep 13, 2016

@RichardWallis thank you :)

@jvandriel
Copy link

@jvandriel jvandriel commented Sep 13, 2016

As you're discussing 'aboutness' here, might I remind you there's a related topic that still needs closure, namely that of about's inverse: topicOf (#1115). I'd love to see some movement on it.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Sep 22, 2016

@danbri danbri closed this Sep 22, 2016
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Sep 22, 2016

Thanks @rtroncy!

@rtroncy
Copy link

@rtroncy rtroncy commented Sep 22, 2016

cc @rbailly !

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 30, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.