{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921/events","html_url":"https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921","id":120865864,"number":921,"title":"Members of DayOfWeek should belong to the schema.org ontology","user":{"login":"betehess","id":196849,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/196849?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess","html_url":"https://github.com/betehess","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/betehess/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":16,"created_at":"2015-12-07T20:56:38Z","updated_at":"2016-02-18T21:10:03Z","closed_at":null,"body":"For some reason, it's still relying on http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#.\r\n\r\nWould the following snippet something we want to support?\r\n\r\n```json\r\n\"openingHoursSpecification\": [\r\n  {\r\n    \"@type\":\"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\r\n    \"dayOfWeek\": [\r\n      \"Monday\",\r\n      \"Tuesday\",\r\n      \"Wednesday\",\r\n      \"Thursday\",\r\n      \"Friday\",\r\n      \"Saturday\"\r\n    ],\r\n    \"opens\":\"09:00\",\r\n    \"closes\":\"21:00\"\r\n  }\r\n]\r\n```\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/comments/185922992","html_url":"https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921#issuecomment-185922992","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/921","id":185922992,"user":{"login":"mfhepp","id":671238,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/671238?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp","html_url":"https://github.com/mfhepp","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mfhepp/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-02-18T21:10:03Z","updated_at":"2016-02-18T21:10:03Z","body":"I would say that in the context of schema.org, enumerated values are perfectly fine (as they have been in GoodRelations for almost a decade now). We do not need to argue about their ontological essence (which could be a painful and fruitless effort). An axiomatic theory that maps these constructs to a notion of time is not needed for the data processing tasks typically executed on the basis of schema.org markup.\n\nMartin\n\n-----------------------------------\nmartin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de\nmhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp\n\n\n\n\n> On 18 Feb 2016, at 21:00, David Whitten <notifications@github.com> wrote:\n> \n> I'm concerned about the ontological meaning of this set \"Sunday\" ... \"Saturday\"\n> In the discussion I've seen here, there has been talk of an enumeration, as if this is the only meaning of these terms. It isn't actually, It is tied to time and human measurement of time, so\n> just a simple enumeration would not satisfy the real needs of this \"type\".\n> \n> David Whitten\n> 713-870-3834\n> PS: if you follow the lead of OpenCyc, you can change the name of the collection using\n> a language tag such as \n> English ID: [ Monday ]\n> English Aliases: [ \"Mondays\" ]\n> \n> In OpenCyc it talks about each of the constants is a shorthand for a set of days.\n> \n> To wit: OpenCyc Collection: day of the week\n> i.e. http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjWeZwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA\n> or: http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/DayOfWeekType\n> \n> states \n> A collection of collections and a specialization of WeeklyTemporalObjectType. Each instance of DayOfWeekType is a collection of CalendarDays, all of whose instances correspond to the same particular \"day of the week\" in the respective weeks in which they occur. For example, Monday -- the collection of all mondays -- is an instance of DayOfWeekType.\n> \n> Instances: Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Monday, Friday, Saturday\n> for example:\n> \n> Monday: http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjW85wpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA\n> or: http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/Monday\n> \n> A collection of CalendarDays and an instance of DayOfWeekType. \n> Monday is the collection of all (and only) mondays.\n> \n> —\n> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.\n> \n\n"}}