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

Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?

From: Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:57:08 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <1381229828.58623.YahooMailBasic@web172603.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, aaranged@gmail.com
Hello!

I read all your answers  - many thanks for clarifying this issue. As i see there are mainly two approachs to get thing done: "two types approach" and using of additionalType.

It is very helpful to have such workarounds, but they are only workarounds, not a "right" solution. This issue seems to be solvable with just simple change of type passage structure/inheriting, namely: one things must be maked possible, CreatieWork type must can inherit Product type. I mean such inheritance is a simple thing, which is even partly present, on other place: CreativeWork can inherit Offer, but why not Product? Making it possible would make such workarounds like "two types approach" redundant - they are indeed redundant cause of impossibility of inheritance, which is possible on another, near place.

Schema.org has pretty clear structure, maintaining of it provides Schema.org to more users and makes the implementing more easy, selfexplaining and issueless. But if one thing is possible on one place, on another similar place is this not possible and needs workarounds so the whole clear structure of Schema is confused. It is just my feeling.


--------------------------------------------
Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> schrieb am Mo, 7.10.2013:

 Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
 An: "Chilly Bang" <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
 CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
 Datum: Montag, 7. Oktober, 2013 22:37 Uhr
 
 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". 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", 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
 
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 10:57:40 UTC

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