W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Support non-commercial usage of schema.org/Offer - RDF(S) patch

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:28:23 +0100
Message-ID: <52A12837.6090608@wwelves.org>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 12/05/2013 02:41 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> Hi Elf:
Hi Martin :)

> Just a quick reply from the GoodRelations perspective:
>
> The basic use-case should already be covered by the Demand type. Demand is essentially a reverse offer. The missing elements for your use-cases seems to be a more generic description of the expected compensation- In GoodRelations, while the notion of the compensation is generic ("I offer 1 kg of gold for 200 lb of good karma"), the elements support monetary compensations only, at the moment.
>
> I will think of how this can be implemented in the conceptual model of GR. From the top of my head, a super-property to priceSpecification would already go far, like
>
> expectedCompensation
>
> with a domain of Offer and (logically:or) Demand, and a range of schema:Thing.
>
> This simple approach would have nice properties:
>
> 1. The case of asking for money is properly modeled as a special case.
> 2. One can model barter trade (e.g. in classifieds - "I want to trade in a pair of shoes for a pair of trousers"; use schema:SomeItems with additionalType for that one)
> 3. One can model that the expected compensation is a certain individual object ("I will wash your car for the Mona Lise painting", simply use schema:Individual with a DBPedia or Freebase URI for the object).
>
> I have to think a bit more about whether that is sufficient to also model business functions on both sides ("I will mow your lawn five times for a used bike"). With schema:TypeAndQuantityNode, this should also be possible, but I have to double check.
>
> So it seems that by adding this single superproperty, we would cover most of what you need.
Thank you for taking your time and helping with your expertise in this 
field!

I find interesting case in current Action sub tree where we find 
schema:TransferAction and schema:TradeAction

I have impression that in your explanation you focused on what would fit 
under TradeAction. Where currently people put most emphasis on its 
special case: *Trading* real goods and services *Product*-s for virtual 
tokens like dollar, euro, bitcoin, dropis, evrgr etc. (monetary currencies)

Realizing issues of such virtual tokens, more people *Trades* with units 
more grounded in physical reality like hours (timebanking) and could 
also use KWH from electric grid, airmiles, trainmiles, busmiles ,h/day 
tickets of local public transport, L of petrol from certain network of 
stations etc.(assets shares) or simply do barter *Product* for *Product* 
as you suggested.

Myself I find even greater potential in what can fit under 
TransferAction! With some way of describing various *conditions*, some 
examples of what *conditions* one could attach to *Offer*:
* required past contributions to open source *SoftwareApplication*-s 
included in list (verified by commits history)
* required past contributions to *Organization*-s included in list 
(verified by logs in task management or with something like 
http://openbadges.org)
* required no records of 'crimes' included in the list (it might take 
WoT in place...)
In general offering products under such *conditions* can enable people 
to leverage their *social karma* (not mesured in lb ;) and empower those 
who do contribute to our common wealth!

> General notice: I assume that this part of schema.org will be leading-edge e-commerce innovations, so do not expect the major search engines to honor such data immediately.
>
> But on the other hand, it shows how nicely GoodRelations supports a huge range of scenarios with relatively few conceptual elements ;-)

I understand that as for today *meaningless* virtual tokens (monetary 
currencies) still stay dominant when it comes to arranging 
Trading/Transfer of *Product*-s. At the same time I see them becoming of 
less significance, or even completely deprecated, once we put in place 
diversity of alternative ways, strongly grounded in physical reality, to 
arrange Trading/Transfer of *Product*-s (non-monetary currencies) IMO 
Semantic Web technologies enable us to design such *meaningful* 
currencies... very exciting times! :D

>
> Martin
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:03 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/2013 08:07 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>> Ping... is there anything else I can do to help move this forward?
>> +1
>>
>> Dan, not sure if you noticed my post about work i start on online wishlists and *in-kind* donations: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Nov/0116.html
>>
>> In general I plan to develop number of open source tools helpful for managing economic flows, based on linked data and giving most emphasis on non-commercial ways for sharing resources and services! Relevant CG (sadly not very active) http://www.w3.org/community/community-io/ and more overview minddump: http://polyeconomy.info/
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>>>> Hello:
>>>>
>>>> Following the great discussion that began with
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0088.html I've
>>>> put together a patch that addresses the bulk of the overly-commercial
>>>> definitions in the current iteration of schema.org.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies if the git diff format is inappropriate; I've been mirroring
>>>> schema.org in a local git repo as the core pages do not appear to be
>>>> available in the w3 webschema mercurial repo.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if I should generate diffs for the individual type /
>>>> property pages as well, rather than just
>>>> http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>           http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 01:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:36 UTC