Re: ISSUE-17: schema.org has NGO, EducationalOrganization, SportsTeam, GovernmentOrganization but not Labo[u]r Union

Hi Dan,

To address "banded together," how about:

"...a group of workers who have organized to achieve common goals." As in "organized labor"

Alternatively:
"an organization of workers who have joined together to achieve common goals."

Best,
--Eric

Eric Axel Franzon
Vice President of Community
SemanticWeb.com
 


On May 9, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 9 May 2013 13:56, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Kendall,
>>> 
>>> I recorded this issue last year after you pointed out that schema.org
>>> has various organizational types, but nothing for the class of things
>>> that are 'Labour Unions'. This is a flaw I'd like to fix.
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/17
>>> https://twitter.com/kendall/status/210422142620286976
>>> 
>>> I come from an English speaking country where people say "trade union"
>>> rather than "labo[u]r union"; I don't have a good intuition for how
>>> odd "trade union" might sound elsewhere.
>> 
>> Trade union is used most often on the Web, according to Google.
>> 
>> It's not the usual term in the US, but people (who care) certainly know what
>> it means.
>> 
>> However, if schema.org prefers US English, then "labor union" seems the
>> obvious choice. It's by far the dominant form in the US. (Not that I think
>> that's a good reason to choose it; but I don't set the rules Schema.org
>> plays by, etc.)
>> 
>>> 
>>> Do you (or others here) have
>>> any thoughts or preferences on a good and intuitive name for this
>>> concept? Schema.org uses US English when a choice is needed, but it's
>>> good to aim at terms that are the same in as many variants of English
>>> as possible.
>> 
>> 
>> Other possibilities:
>> 
>> "workers union" or just "union".
> 
> Schema.org has the challenge of trying to squeeze a lot of diverse
> domains into a flat namespace. For that reason I lean more towards
> WorkersUnion than plain Union. Searching using the phrase "workers
> union" finds a lot of relevant pages, it is fairly self-descriptive
> and not ambiguous. I can't think of another sense of Union we'd want a
> type for right now, but it's a very general word (an SQL ontology?).
> 
> (BTW I noticed yesterday we have the (Organization) ArtGallery and we
> have (WebPage) ImageGallery. Both make sense in their context but
> presented together look a little odd.)
> 
>>> I'm not sure if there are subtle substantive differences between
>>> 'labor union' and 'trade union'.
>> 
>> 
>> Only geographic, IMO. They refer to the same concept (in some general,
>> family resemblance kind of way, of course).
> 
> Thanks, that's helpful.
> 
>>> Would "Trade Union" be workable to US-English ears? I have a mild
>>> preference for it because it avoids the word "labor"/"labour", which
>>> has two spellings.
>> 
>> 
>> Workable in that people know what it means? Yes.
>> 
>> But it would seem kind of oddball if, generally, Schema.org prefers US
>> English.
>> 
>> I think given all the context, "Union" is a fine choice.
> 
> Understood re Trade Union. How about this,
> 
> URI: http://schema.org/WorkersUnion
> Blurb: "A Workers Union (also known as a Labor Union, Labour Union, or
> Trade Union) is an organization of workers who have banded together to
> achieve common goals."
> 
> ...this text comes partly from Wikipedia. I'd like to have something
> other than 'banded together' but I can't think of an improvement right
> now.
> 
> Dan
>