You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Many users of schema.org end up in this repository because they find that the current state of the vocabulary does not fit their individual needs, e.g. missing properties, insufficient specificity, etc.
While feedback from users is essential for schema.org, such proposals often do not end up in actual extensions to the vocabulary, which creates frustration among the submitters and puts a workload on the schema.org core contributors.
It would be good to create guidelines on (1) when and (2) how to propose changes or extensions to the vocabulary.
Here are some first ideas (maybe a bit too specific; we must not discourage users from proposing changes, of course):
Checklist
My proposal is about the vocabulary, not about problems with existing tools (like validators), the consumption of data by search engines or other applications, or the underlying syntaxes like JSON-LD, Microdata, or RDFa.
Which applications can be expected to consume the enhanced data? (Very often, proposing an extension included the implicit expectation that major search engines will also actually use it, which will depend on many factors and take time.)
Can you provide URLs of Web pages that contain the respective information (e.g. that would benefit from the proposed extension)? Ideally, the URLs would be from different sites.
Did you check if the required information could be modeled with existing schema.org types and properties, e.g. with minor modifications to the text of existing definitions or by adding types to the domain or range?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
mfhepp
changed the title
Meta-issue: Provide guidance on when and how proposals for extensions and modifications should be submitted
Meta-issue: Provide guidance for proposing extensions and modifications via issue templates
Mar 6, 2024
Many users of schema.org end up in this repository because they find that the current state of the vocabulary does not fit their individual needs, e.g. missing properties, insufficient specificity, etc.
While feedback from users is essential for schema.org, such proposals often do not end up in actual extensions to the vocabulary, which creates frustration among the submitters and puts a workload on the schema.org core contributors.
It would be good to create guidelines on (1) when and (2) how to propose changes or extensions to the vocabulary.
This could be implemented as one or multiple Github issue templates; for inspiration, see e.g. this collection of issue templates, maybe accompanied by a dedicated page in the documentation.
Here are some first ideas (maybe a bit too specific; we must not discourage users from proposing changes, of course):
Checklist
schema:Intangible
) andschema:Enumeration
insofar they are relevant for my proposal.schema:QualitativeValue
, quantitative values viaschema:QuantitativeValue
, and property-value pairs defined outside of schema.org viaschema:PropertyValue
insofar they are relevant for my proposal.schema:additionalType
orschema:additionalProperty
.Content
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: