search

historical-data / schema

Microdata schema for historical data.
historical-data.org
30 stars 4 forks source link

rename baptism to christening #14

Closed stoicflame closed 12 years ago

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

since we've decided to keep around "canonical" properties for most-used events, I propose renaming baptism to christening to allow for a more generic usage of the property. I think, generally speaking, genealogists are more comfortable using christening to include baptism et. al. as opposed to using baptism to include christening et. al.

ninjudd commented 12 years ago

I would argue for removing baptism from the canonical events altogether if it were not such an important data field for genealogy. It is certainly possible to have multiple baptisms.

ninjudd commented 12 years ago

My understanding is that christening is used to mean infant baptism in this context. Is that correct? If so, then renaming baptism to christening makes sense to me.

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

My understanding is that christening is used to mean infant baptism in this context. Is that correct?

Yes.

NatAtGeni commented 12 years ago

In the event that there are multiple baptisms, would the events other than an infant baptism be listed as 'events' for that HistoricalPerson?

ninjudd commented 12 years ago

Putting multiple baptisms in events makes sense to me. In this way, christening is a better name for the canonical field since you can only have one.

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

I think we're done with discussion on this. Can I apply the change?

I noticed that I messed up this branch by basing it off the clarifying-document-content-description branch. When I commit, I'll be sure to just apply 1b20e19 and not fb0b0f8.

NatAtGeni commented 12 years ago

Yes, this looks fine to me. Go ahead and apply it.