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

Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 20:54:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv_0Fc40b=iiYoOevRvVv9SjfatA4KmXdxezSyrYWM0KHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Absolutely. The assumption is that if an entity is an instance of multiple
types, this should be stated explicitly (as opposed to using a property
from a different type and expecting a reasoner to infer the type).

Guha


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Something else that has made it hard for me to generalize from the use of
> product ontology to the use of additional schema.org types is that the
> product ontology use provides an additional type but no additional
> properties. It feels kind of like an aside. The schema.org use case seems
> to provide different capabilities, and has a more substantial impact on the
> instance metadata.
>
> Admittedly, there was the quote that flew through here today saying that
> proper reasoners would infer from the properties that one was making a
> statement about additional types, but it does not seem that that assumption
> has been in force during most of the development of schema.org --
> instead, multiple typing within schema.org has been done explicitly in
> the design of classes and properties rather than being relegated to
> instances and reasoners.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/7/13 5:20 PM, Aaron Bradley wrote:
>
>> The documentation here leaves a lot to be desired.  I think, at the very
>> least, an example of this in use on schema.org <http://schema.org> with
>> a schema.org <http://schema.org> URL would be useful.  As far as I know
>>
>> ProductModel [1] is the only type that uses additionalType in example
>> code, and this very much in keeping with what the property's description
>> describes as the "typical"  use for the property in "adding more
>> specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax."
>>
>> Is <link> required to employ additionalType?  Once an additionalType is
>> declared, can properties be associated with it *and* the
>> initially-declared item?  There's no guidance on this or any other
>> information on schema.org <http://schema.org> about implementing
>>
>> additionalType.
>>
>> Note that additionalType proposal [2] included "Changes to
>> http://schema.org/docs/**datamodel.html<http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html>"
>> - namely the insertion of a
>> section "Handling of Multiple Types."  That section obviously never made
>> its way to the Data Model page.
>>
>> [1] http://schema.org/ProductModel
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/**WebSchemas/**additionalTypeProposal<http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Guha <guha@google.com
>> <mailto:guha@google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     This is what http://schema.org/**additionalType<http://schema.org/additionalType>is for.
>>
>>     All of an object's types have the same standing.
>>
>>     guha
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:wes.turner@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Is this what http://schema.org/**additionalType<http://schema.org/additionalType>is for?
>>
>>         --
>>         Wes Turner
>>
>>
>>         On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Aaron Bradley
>>         <aaranged@gmail.com <mailto:aaranged@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Dan's solution and Martin's link are excellent ones.  Just a
>>             quick FYI a previous discussion and a proposal related to it
>>             provide some further information on this type of conundrum
>>             in schema.org <http://schema.org>:
>>
>>             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-schemabibex/**
>> 2013Jan/0182.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Jan/0182.html>
>>
>>             http://www.w3.org/wiki/**WebSchemas/**SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema<http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema>
>>
>>             A fragment from the former reference:
>>
>>             > Assuming they take OWL seriously, they would infer new
>> types for the
>>             > entity if properties were mixed and matched. If example, if
>> the claimed
>>             > type is schema:Book and somebody used the schema:sku
>> property, they
>>             > could infer it is also a schema:Product.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Dan Scott
>>             <dan@coffeecode.net <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>> wrote:
>>
>>                 On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:16:01PM +0100, Chilly Bang
>> wrote:
>>
>>                     Hello!
>>
>>                     i'm busy at the moment with marking up with
>>                     microdata of an online bookstore and realized the
>>                     following dilemma:
>>                     if a page is about describing and selling of a
>>                     CreativeWork/Book, so i come to selling properties
>>                     with itemprop="offers" itemscope=""
>>                     itemtype="http://schema.org/__**Offer<http://schema.org/__Offer>
>>
>>                     <http://schema.org/Offer>". But on this way i can't
>>                     describe the book i sell like Product, with
>>                     product's properties - i can't find any passage from
>>                     CreativeWork to Product. There is in fact a passage
>>                     from Offer to Product, with itemprop="itemOffered"
>>                     itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/__**Product<http://schema.org/__Product>
>>
>>                     <http://schema.org/Product>", but repeating isn't a
>>                     good way, beside of this it isn't easy to get such
>>                     passage into html, even with itemref.
>>
>>                     I see no possibility to go the way
>>                     CreativeWork->Product->Offer (or
>>                     CreativeWork->Product and CreativeWork->Offer), but
>>                     only CreativeWork->Offer, or Product->Offer.
>>                     CreativeWork can't be a Product or am i wrong?
>>
>>                     Imho CreativeWork surely can own product's
>>                     properties so it must gladly have a passage from any
>>                     CreativeWork property to Product.
>>
>>
>>                 You can just use both types in the itemtype declaration,
>>                 for example,
>>                 itemtype="Book Product".
>>
>>                 We're doing this in the #schemabibex group to express
>>                 offers for a given
>>                 item. And Martin gave a wonderful example of this
>>                 approach on this list
>>                 just a few days back at
>>                 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/_**
>> _Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/**__0206.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/__0206.html>
>>                 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
>> Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/**0206.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0206.html>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 03:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC