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

Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?

From: Cosmin Paun <cpaun88@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:14:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOcLuTxz8vFepwTO5LTyM6_TNYFchT9C++aOQ5Cz0dGN95PKyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guha <guha@google.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I believe that also the "about" property from CreativeWork can be used
to solve this problem.

E.g.:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/CreativeWork">
   <h1 itemprop="name">.....</h1>
   <div itemprop="description">....</div>


   <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
   ....
  </div>
</div>

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> 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" - 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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 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://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>". 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>", 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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 16:14:42 UTC

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