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

https://schema.org/CarUsageType and instances should go to the auto.schema.org extension #898

Open
mfhepp opened this Issue Nov 18, 2015 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@mfhepp
Contributor

mfhepp commented Nov 18, 2015

I think that

https://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances should be moved from schema.org core to the auto.schema.org extension, because the only property that uses this value set type,

https://auto.schema.org/specialUsage

is also defined in the extension, not in the core.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

Thanks. However please see #705 "auto.schema.org extension: consider renaming specialUsage as vehicleSpecialUsage, or broaden its definition"; closing in favour of that existing issue.

Contributor

danbri commented Nov 18, 2015

Thanks. However please see #705 "auto.schema.org extension: consider renaming specialUsage as vehicleSpecialUsage, or broaden its definition"; closing in favour of that existing issue.

@danbri danbri closed this Nov 18, 2015

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

This is IMO a different issue. If we decide to rename and broaden specialUsage, then https://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances should be moved from schema.org core to the auto.schema.org extension AND specialUsage should be added to the core.

Currently, it is the other way round.

Contributor

mfhepp commented Nov 18, 2015

This is IMO a different issue. If we decide to rename and broaden specialUsage, then https://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances should be moved from schema.org core to the auto.schema.org extension AND specialUsage should be added to the core.

Currently, it is the other way round.

@mfhepp mfhepp reopened this Nov 18, 2015

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

Since we also have itemCondition for generic product information about special usage, I think that simply moving https://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances to the auto.schema.org extension and maybe renaming http://auto.schema.org/specialUsage to vehicleSpecialUsage (tbd) will be the better route.

Contributor

mfhepp commented Nov 18, 2015

Since we also have itemCondition for generic product information about special usage, I think that simply moving https://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances to the auto.schema.org extension and maybe renaming http://auto.schema.org/specialUsage to vehicleSpecialUsage (tbd) will be the better route.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

Let me rephrase: the current approach, which uses a generic phrase for a very car-specific concept, isn't viable. Either the definition or the name has to change. Once we have resolved that question, then we are in a sensible position to decide whether terms are core or extension. I think we agree on where the terms should best live (i.e. in auto extension, with the property renamed as above).

Contributor

danbri commented Nov 18, 2015

Let me rephrase: the current approach, which uses a generic phrase for a very car-specific concept, isn't viable. Either the definition or the name has to change. Once we have resolved that question, then we are in a sensible position to decide whether terms are core or extension. I think we agree on where the terms should best live (i.e. in auto extension, with the property renamed as above).

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

@danbri I agree, so let's

  1. rename http://auto.schema.org/specialUsage to http://auto.schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage in the extension AND
  2. move http://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances to auto.schema.org AND
  3. double-check that specialUsage is changed to vehicleSpecialUsage in all examples.
Contributor

mfhepp commented Nov 18, 2015

@danbri I agree, so let's

  1. rename http://auto.schema.org/specialUsage to http://auto.schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage in the extension AND
  2. move http://schema.org/CarUsageType and its predefined instances to auto.schema.org AND
  3. double-check that specialUsage is changed to vehicleSpecialUsage in all examples.
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

Sounds good to me. We can always collect xyzSpecialUsage properties into a common superproperty in the future, if some appear.

BTW from many years ago we also have http://schema.org/specialCommitments whose name is similarly too generic for its job-centric definition; maybe we can address that in future, but I'm glad we're not compounding the issue.

Contributor

danbri commented Nov 18, 2015

Sounds good to me. We can always collect xyzSpecialUsage properties into a common superproperty in the future, if some appear.

BTW from many years ago we also have http://schema.org/specialCommitments whose name is similarly too generic for its job-centric definition; maybe we can address that in future, but I'm glad we're not compounding the issue.

@twamarc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@twamarc

twamarc Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

@mfhepp @danbri this is interesting and may solve some issues for other extensions as well. I will try to see how it looks like once applied to vague/too general terms used fro medical/health extension.
#492 (comment)

Contributor

twamarc commented Nov 18, 2015

@mfhepp @danbri this is interesting and may solve some issues for other extensions as well. I will try to see how it looks like once applied to vague/too general terms used fro medical/health extension.
#492 (comment)

@trypuz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trypuz

trypuz Dec 3, 2015

Contributor

@mfhepp @danbri if we rename http://auto.schema.org/specialUsage to http://auto.schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage we will have vehicleSpecialUsage property at the same time in the core and auto extension.

Notice that http://schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage has neither domain nor range.

http://auto.schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage will have range:CarUsageType, range:Text and domain:Vehicle. IMO http://schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage should be removed from core.

Contributor

trypuz commented Dec 3, 2015

@mfhepp @danbri if we rename http://auto.schema.org/specialUsage to http://auto.schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage we will have vehicleSpecialUsage property at the same time in the core and auto extension.

Notice that http://schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage has neither domain nor range.

http://auto.schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage will have range:CarUsageType, range:Text and domain:Vehicle. IMO http://schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage should be removed from core.

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Dec 3, 2015

Contributor

I would keep vehicleSpecialUsage in the core. Our guideline for core vs. extension was the following:

  1. Stuff that is needed for many typical auto sites, including independent dealers and car listing sites, should go in core.
  2. Stuff that is likely only needed on the authoritative manufacturer pages will go into the extension.

vehicleSpecialUsage will be used for hundreds of thousands of used car listings.

http://schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage has neither domain nor range.

That is an error and should be fixed, ideally in your upcoming pull-request.

Contributor

mfhepp commented Dec 3, 2015

I would keep vehicleSpecialUsage in the core. Our guideline for core vs. extension was the following:

  1. Stuff that is needed for many typical auto sites, including independent dealers and car listing sites, should go in core.
  2. Stuff that is likely only needed on the authoritative manufacturer pages will go into the extension.

vehicleSpecialUsage will be used for hundreds of thousands of used car listings.

http://schema.org/vehicleSpecialUsage has neither domain nor range.

That is an error and should be fixed, ideally in your upcoming pull-request.

@trypuz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trypuz
Contributor

trypuz commented Dec 4, 2015

@W3C-GAO W3C-GAO referenced this issue Dec 8, 2015

Merged

Auto final fixes #922

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment