Rework with existing schema.org types

[MikeRalphson]

See schemaorg/schemaorg#1423 (comment)

[nickevansuk]

Also see schemaorg/schemaorg#1423 (comment) if helpful :)

[MikeRalphson]

Thanks for cross-referencing!

[nickevansuk]

@MikeRalphson do you happen to know what's going on with this? Is there an intention to progress it? What's holding this up?

[MikeRalphson]

There is an intention to progress it, just every time I get around to looking at it I run out of time.

[nickevansuk]

Is it something that someone could help with, or is this just something that needs you to find the time? Would you accept a PR, for example? Would that be useful at this stage? Or is it more design thinking that's required?

[MikeRalphson]

Any help would be very gratefully received. PRs especially welcome.

[nickevansuk]

Very happy to! Are you happy with the changes outlined in this comment schemaorg/schemaorg#1423 (comment) ? If so I'll happily PR them in? Also happy to have a quick Zoom/chat or whatever if that's the quickest way to go through them and check you're happy?

[MikeRalphson]

Yes, your list in the linked issue was what I was going to try and apply, PR away and we can schedule a Zoom call if anything comes up.

[nickevansuk]

Perfect will do @MikeRalphson, thanks!

[nickevansuk]

@MikeRalphson sorry for the delay, have now done this! Let me know if a Zoom would be easier to talk through?

Specific point of contention is:

• documentation vs endpointDescription - should we have a separate property for machine readable documentation, or overload the existing documentation property?

If you're happy with the proposals, I can go ahead and PR them into https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/master/data/ext/pending/issue-1423.ttl and https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/master/data/ext/pending/issue-1423-examples.txt, which seems to be the next step?

[MikeRalphson]

I'm happy with using documentation for machine-readable definitions, because we have the encodingFormat property which will enable intelligent crawlers to know whether they can parse the target documentation before fetching it (which was my overriding concern).

[nickevansuk]

Great, thanks @MikeRalphson - in that case #7 looks like it might be there now? Let me know re: next steps above?

[MikeRalphson]

If you have time to raise those schema.org PRs, that would be great!

[MikeRalphson]

Please could you also tag me in the PR descriptions so I get subscribed?