Re: Changes vs. new element

Some thoughts...

> But /Library is a "/LocalBusiness", which is location-oriented and has
>no relation to /Offer,


/Library inherits makesOffer from Organization - so there is a connection
between Library and Offer

I agree that the reverse connecting property from Offer to an
Organization/Library (seller) is not appropriately named - maybe we could
suggest adding 'lender'.


Proposal [2] seems to mix two concepts, that should possibly approached
separately.

* Holding statement - which indicates what a library has
* A holding - what a library has [on Offer] for loan or access by other
means.

Are these not simply mapped to the Organisation properties 'owns' (in the
looses sense), and makesOffer (to make available), respectively?

As to the shelf location, call number, availability information.  Would
this not sit best on IndividualProduct alongside serialNumber (barcode)?
How abut 'storageLocation' and 'locationReference' as properties for
these?  The IndividualProduct bing referenced from an Offer as
'itemOffered'.

~Richard.

On 01/08/2013 15:31, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>Dan Brickley replied on the vocabs list [1] to a question about changing
>existing schema.org elements:
>
>"We don't have very rigid policies. But in general, there's a strong
>bias towards additive changes, since any existing vocabulary that is
>being used is unlikely to completely vanish."
>
>This now leaves us with a bit of a dilemma for holdings. We have
>essentially two holdings proposals. One defines new elements [2], and
>one makes use of existing properties, although those would probably need
>to have their definitions expanded. [3]
>
>In addition, [2] needs a class -- either the properties would be
>sub-classed to, for example, /Library, or there needs to be a new class
>for library holdings. But /Library is a "/LocalBusiness", which is
>location-oriented and has no relation to /Offer, while library holdings
>is a kind of combination of location and offer. If we go with [3] then
>we would be re-using existing properties and classes, and the
>"library-ness" would be less evident in the holdings area (although
>presumably there would be some use of /Library in the markup).
>
>There was some positive feedback about changing /Offer so that it could
>be used for things other than sales. I'm not sure how to go about
>proposing the other changes that [3] would entail. Should we propose
>them en masse? one at a time?
>
>kc
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jul/0167.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings
>[3] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Jul/0083.html
>-- 
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>ph: 1-510-540-7596
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet
>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 15:22:48 UTC