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

Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:06:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv_RXebvtjBo8ZYjwtx6MQgRZnNtNGB9MWFEWOyAUH7xkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
No!

additionalType == typeOf.

It can be used to state that an entity is an instance of some class,
irrespective of whether that class is in schema.org or not.

guha


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Martin, that wasn't a criticism. I really do mean that the lack of
> properties had led me to think of additionalType as significantly different
> to multiple schema types. Since schema uses a single namespace, it makes
> sense to me that additionalType would allow references to non-schema types,
> while one would use multiple schema types in a type declaration.
>
> So, have we concluded that additionalType refers to classes external to
> schema?
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/7/13 11:35 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>
>> The Product Types Ontology cannot provide additional properties, since
>> they cannot be directly derived from Wikipedia lemmata.
>> I am working on a very lean yet powerful way for that, stay tuned ;-)
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Karen Coyle 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
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------**--------------------------
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 16:06:28 UTC

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