The 1.0 modelling specification defines an "Activity Opportunity". These are self-directed activities, that take place in a specific location, but at a time of the participants choosing. E.g. a walking trail, or mountain bike course.
The assumption has been that these should be described similarly to Events but without the timing and scheduling properties.
We haven't yet decided how to model walking or cycling routes, but these are separate concerns.
But the facilities proposal (#62) also describes use of a specific amenity for a self-directed activity?
Should we remove Activity Opportunity and say that something like a walking trail is an Amenity Use (a Product)? Or are these distinct enough entities?
If we remove Activity Opportunity then we would need to:
- make
events optional on AmenityUse, as they don't make sense for this type of opportunity
- rev the specification to 2.0 as this is a breaking change
An alternative approach would be to just come up with a different name for this type of opportunity, e.g. "Self Directed Opportunity"
The 1.0 modelling specification defines an "Activity Opportunity". These are self-directed activities, that take place in a specific location, but at a time of the participants choosing. E.g. a walking trail, or mountain bike course.
The assumption has been that these should be described similarly to Events but without the timing and scheduling properties.
We haven't yet decided how to model walking or cycling routes, but these are separate concerns.
But the facilities proposal (#62) also describes use of a specific amenity for a self-directed activity?
Should we remove Activity Opportunity and say that something like a walking trail is an Amenity Use (a Product)? Or are these distinct enough entities?
If we remove Activity Opportunity then we would need to:
eventsoptional onAmenityUse, as they don't make sense for this type of opportunityAn alternative approach would be to just come up with a different name for this type of opportunity, e.g. "Self Directed Opportunity"