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

eligibleRegion and ineligbleRegion have different associated types #213

Closed
3 tasks
danbri opened this issue Jan 5, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed
3 tasks

eligibleRegion and ineligbleRegion have different associated types #213

danbri opened this issue Jan 5, 2015 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
guidelines docs examples Work on our supporting materials rather than on schema definitions schema.org vocab General top level tag for issues on the vocabulary

Comments

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Jan 5, 2015

http://schema.org/eligibleRegion
http://schema.org/ineligibleRegion

eligibleRegion is applicable on more types, but fails to allow Place.

ineligibleRegion is applicable on fewer types (not Demand or DeliveryChargeSpecification), and anticipates Place but not GeoShape, Text.

There is no obvious reason for these properties to vary.

Exact proposal:

(We might also consider their relationship to Action types while we're at it - spawn separate issue?)

@danbri danbri added schema.org vocab General top level tag for issues on the vocabulary guidelines docs examples Work on our supporting materials rather than on schema definitions needs review labels Jan 5, 2015
@danbri danbri added this to the sdo-stantz release milestone Jan 21, 2015
@danbri danbri self-assigned this Feb 6, 2015
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

danbri commented Feb 6, 2015

I think we should do this.

@chaals
Copy link
Contributor

chaals commented Mar 18, 2015

agreed

@tmarshbing
Copy link

tmarshbing commented Mar 24, 2015

+1

mfhepp added a commit to mfhepp/schemaorg that referenced this issue Mar 24, 2015
@mfhepp mfhepp mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2015
@mfhepp
Copy link
Contributor

mfhepp commented Mar 24, 2015

I just submitted a pull request that fixes this:
#393

@mfhepp
Copy link
Contributor

mfhepp commented Apr 16, 2015

that looks good to me

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
guidelines docs examples Work on our supporting materials rather than on schema definitions schema.org vocab General top level tag for issues on the vocabulary
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants