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

Add a way to distinguish to: cc: and bcc: in EmailMessage #1590

Closed
vholland opened this issue Apr 14, 2017 · 11 comments
Closed

Add a way to distinguish to: cc: and bcc: in EmailMessage #1590

vholland opened this issue Apr 14, 2017 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@vholland
Copy link
Contributor

@vholland vholland commented Apr 14, 2017

http://schema.org/EmailMessage currently has the http://schema.org/recipient property for specifying who received the message. Sometimes it is useful to be able to break out whether the recipient was cc'ed or bcc'ed on the message.

I propose adding the following subproperties to http://schema.org/recipient:

  • to_recipient: The Person or Organization the message was directly sent to.
  • cc_recipient: The Person or Organization copied on a message.
  • bcc_recipient: The Person or Organization blind copied on a message.
@vholland vholland self-assigned this Apr 14, 2017
@rvguha
Copy link
Contributor

@rvguha rvguha commented Apr 14, 2017

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented May 4, 2017

+1 for something like this change.

Actual email messages record more than this, you get a formatted string with an email address plus supporting label; you also know what the order was. Currently we only indicate the receiving person but not as far as I can see, even which of their email addresses were used.

We don't have an email address/account type (http://schema.org/email just expects Text).

Feels like we had this discussion already once before around http://schema.org/DigitalDocumentPermission and we settled on some use of Audience and ContactPoint, where the latter serves as a kind of supertype for a non-existence EmailAccount type.

@vholland does the usecase you have in mind care only about which person/org got the message, or also about which email account(s) it was addressed to?

@vholland
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vholland vholland commented May 4, 2017

I was thinking the range would be Person, ContactPoint, or text. Text would serve the role where the email address is the only thing known. It seems a waste of an author's time to create a ContactPoint simply to provide an email address.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented May 4, 2017

Ok, we'll tweak the above then to adapt to that. I agree re ContactPoint (unless you wanted to record both naming string and the actual email, in which case using two fields of a ContactPoint seems slightly nicer).

Another detail, you've suggested to_xyz but we're camelcase everywhere else as far as I remember.

@nicolastorzec @chaals @tmarshbing @scor are you ok with this? Seems straightforward enough to me, with these clarifications.

@tmarshbing
Copy link

@tmarshbing tmarshbing commented May 5, 2017

+1 The proposal seems straightforward and useful. I agree with using camel case.

@vholland
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vholland vholland commented May 5, 2017

+1 on the camel case. The underscores were due to spending time in a different ontology recently.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented May 9, 2017

Ok, since this seems pretty much "no brainer" and a tweak to established vocabulary I suggest we make the change directly in schema.org core. For other areas where a proposal is relatively new / distinct I'm putting things into pending first, but in this case I think that would be melodramatically unnecessary.

@thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor

@thadguidry thadguidry commented May 9, 2017

@danbri very mello :)

vholland added a commit to vholland/schemaorg that referenced this issue May 9, 2017
@vholland
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vholland vholland commented May 9, 2017

See pr #1615

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue May 9, 2017
Issue #1590: Added bccRecipient, ccRecipient, and toRecipient
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented May 9, 2017

Merged (into evolving next-release candidate). Thanks @vholland, all!

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue May 10, 2017
@vholland
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vholland vholland commented May 28, 2020

Done in schema.org 3.3.

@vholland vholland closed this May 28, 2020
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
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.