Skip to content

BroadcastService supertype should be Service, not Thing. #315

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

Closed
danbri opened this issue Feb 3, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

BroadcastService supertype should be Service, not Thing. #315

danbri opened this issue Feb 3, 2015 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
schema.org vocab General top level tag for issues on the vocabulary status:work expected We are likely to, or would like to, or probably should try, ... to do something in this area. type:bug A mistake or malfunction whose remedy should be straightforward technical work type:cleanup + clarity Addresses wording fixes, ambiguities, confusion, bad examples etc

Comments

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Feb 3, 2015

We have a variety of service-related types, and it makes not sense for BroadcastService to sit at the top below http://schema.org/Thing - let's find a better home for it. Proposal: set supertype of BroadcastService to be http://schema.org/Service. It was a mistake to add it under Thing, rather than under Intangible or Service.

Nearby we currently have:

Although you could argue that the FinancialService and ProfessionalService types aren't necessarily local and also shouldn't be all under http://schema.org/Service, that's a wider debate.

http://schema.org/Service seems a bearable if vague fit. It is under Intangible, and already has a couple of subtypes (Taxi and GovernmentService).

/cc @vholland

@danbri danbri added type:bug A mistake or malfunction whose remedy should be straightforward technical work schema.org vocab General top level tag for issues on the vocabulary status:needs review status:work expected We are likely to, or would like to, or probably should try, ... to do something in this area. type:cleanup + clarity Addresses wording fixes, ambiguities, confusion, bad examples etc labels Feb 3, 2015
@danbri danbri self-assigned this Feb 3, 2015
@danbri danbri added this to the sdo-gozer release milestone Feb 3, 2015
@rvguha
Copy link
Contributor

rvguha commented Feb 3, 2015

sgtm

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Dan Brickley notifications@github.com
wrote:

We have a variety of service-related types, and it makes not sense for
BroadcastService to sit at the top below http://schema.org/Thing - let's
find a better home for it. Proposal: set supertype of BroadcastService to
be http://schema.org/Service. It was a mistake to add it under Thing,
rather than under Intangible or Service.

Nearby we currently have:

Although you could argue that the FinancialService and ProfessionalService
types aren't necessarily local and also shouldn't be all under
http://schema.org/Service, that's a wider debate.

http://schema.org/Service seems a bearable if vague fit. It is under
Intangible, and already has a couple of subtypes (Taxi and
GovernmentService).

/cc @vholland https://github.com/vholland


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#315.

@jvandriel
Copy link

Sorry for crossposting but could http://schema.org/MedicalProcedure have http://schema.org/Service set as supertype as well, as raised in issue #296 ?

@tmarshbing
Copy link

This change looks good, but it also creates an awkward duplication between area and serviceArea, both of which are now applicable to BroadcastService. Should we deprecate area as part of this change?

@vickitardif
Copy link
Contributor

+1 to deprecating area.

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue May 14, 2015
This fixes  #315 again, defining Service as the supertype of BroadcastService.
Thanks @unor for reporting this and @vholland for confirming the intent.
Fixes #493
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
schema.org vocab General top level tag for issues on the vocabulary status:work expected We are likely to, or would like to, or probably should try, ... to do something in this area. type:bug A mistake or malfunction whose remedy should be straightforward technical work type:cleanup + clarity Addresses wording fixes, ambiguities, confusion, bad examples etc
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants