Re: Schema.org and OWL

Cheers Thad, anything you'd recommend I read to learn more?

I think Martin's point about passing information from product types to
product instances can be addressed higher in the hierarchy than Product
actually. I sense people are opposed to shifting properties from more
specific types to Thing though (maybe I don't understand something, can
someone please explain that to me?) My view is that using overly specific
domains for properties causes strange entailment, e.g. in its current form
the "height" property entails the subject is either a MediaObject, Person,
Product, or VisualArtwork, which doesn't seem right.

A more general solution, which might benefit other parts of Schema, might
look like the following:

*Thing*
    height
    width
    depth
    weight
    material
    color
    predecessorOf
    successorTo
    variantOf
        *Product*
            offers

*ThingType*
    heightOfTypicalInstances
    widthOfTypicalInstances
    depthOfTypicalInstances
    weightOfTypicalInstances
    materialOfTypicalInstances
    colorOfTypicalInstances
    predecessorTypeOf
    successorTypeTo
    variantTypeOf
*        ProductType*
            offersOfTypicalInstances


This isn't complete obviously, and I understand how big a change it would
be, happy if it just stimulates other ideas I guess.

On Martin's other point about distinguishing individual products from
groups of products, I don't think IndividualProduct is required once
SomeProducts is removed from beneath Product (where it incorrectly sits
now) - once you do that all Products are individual products unless
additionally typed as SomeProducts.

When I first came across Schema the Products part was the hardest part to
grasp because it doesn't follow the rest of Schema, it has its own
specialized logic. The following structure could possibly be a remedy:

*Product*
*ProductType*
*SomeProducts*


I understand the magnitude of the change practically, but from a logical
point of view does anybody see something this structure would miss?

Anthony

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:50 PM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure I understand what you want to say in here.
>
> > http://schema.org/model
>
> is the relationship type / property for materializing the link between a
> product and its product model. So clearly, this relationship type is a
> property, not a class / entity type. But the original discussion was
> referring to schema:ProductModel, which is the class / entity type.
>
> Martin
>
> -----------------------------------
> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Jun 2018, at 19:03, elf-pavlik@hackers4peace.net wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-06-14 07:46, Thad Guidry wrote:
> >> Hi Martin !
> >> "no, ProductModel is not an attribute, it is a class in its own
> >> right."
> >> Yes, that's what our current modeling simplifies to since it borrowed
> >> the top level from RDF.
> >> And that's where you have your opinion and others politely disagree
> >> and have their own opinion, that Model is an attribute or trait of the
> >> type Product.  But that is fine !  We have dealt with it and things
> >> are published now. No worries!
> >
> > http://schema.org/model
> >
> > "The model of the product. Use with the URL of a ProductModel or a
> textual representation of the model identifier. The URL of the ProductModel
> can be from an external source. It is recommended to additionally provide
> strong product identifiers via the gtin8/gtin13/gtin14 and mpn properties."
> >
> > Values expected to be one of these types:
> > ProductModel
> > Text
> >
> > Used on these types:
> > Product
> >
>
>
>