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

serviceAudience vs. audience #145

Closed
elf-pavlik opened this issue Oct 7, 2014 · 9 comments
Closed

serviceAudience vs. audience #145

elf-pavlik opened this issue Oct 7, 2014 · 9 comments
Assignees

Comments

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Contributor

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik commented Oct 7, 2014

http://schema.org/audience
http://schema.org/serviceAudience

related email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Oct/0023.html

I would suggest removing serviceAudience and using generic audience. If some reasons exist for not doing so maybe at least defining serviceAudience as subPropertyOf audience?

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Contributor Author

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik commented Oct 7, 2014

BTW Service may need some more tweaking, currently
Service --{serviceArea}--> AdministrativeArea
Service --{serviceAudience}--> Audience --{geographicArea}--> AdministrativeArea

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Contributor Author

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik commented Oct 7, 2014

also http://schema.org/serviceType doesn't make much sense to my, maybe better to allow additionalType to accept Text since people focusing on RDF will most likely use multiple values on type ?

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Jan 21, 2015

@elf-pavlik 's proposal seems sensible to me. @vholland - any thoughts?

@danbri danbri added this to the 2015 Q1 milestone Jan 21, 2015
@danbri danbri self-assigned this Jan 21, 2015
@vholland
Copy link
Contributor

@vholland vholland commented Jan 21, 2015

Sounds good to me.

elf-pavlik added a commit to elf-pavlik/schemaorg that referenced this issue Jan 25, 2015
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Jan 25, 2015

Thanks. Historically it is pretty rare for us to actually erase terms, so far we usually just mark as supersededBy. In this case maybe that is too conservative and best to avoid clutter. Any thoughts?

@sesuncedu
Copy link
Contributor

@sesuncedu sesuncedu commented Jan 25, 2015

You could mark the obsolete terms in HTML with . In the type rendering
you could group the obsoleted terms together with the term that obsoleted
them.

I've been treating superseded as implying sub property and obsolete .

The sub property relationship might be wrong, if a superseding property can
have a narrower meaning than the older term.

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Contributor Author

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik commented Feb 7, 2015

@danbri if you like I can revert | drop this change and then use schema:supersededBy instead!

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Feb 7, 2015

Yes, I think schema:supersededBy would be most appropriate here. @elf-pavlik could you tweak your branch that #285 draws from? I've filed this for the next release, and can't see it proving controversial.

Simon is right that we could say more about what it means. We have never said that it implies subPropertyOf, since it is easy enough to assert that independently at the same time where needed.

In this case I believe serviceAudience would also be a sub-property of audience.

@danbri danbri modified the milestones: sdo-gozer release, 2015 Q1 Apr 16, 2015
danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2015
removed serviceAudience and reused audience rel #145
danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2015
Revert "removed serviceAudience and reused audience rel #145"
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Apr 16, 2015

I've implemented this manually after failing with the pull request. I tweaked the definition to be "An intended audience, i.e. a group for whom something was created." rather than use "item" or "subject" to refer to the thing that has the audience. Also "an" rather than "the" since the property is repeatable.

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
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.