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

Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product? - two types approach not valid

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:22:20 +0200
Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org, aaranged@gmail.com
Message-Id: <8CE516A8-C0C4-4105-B119-FC043C874FA3@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: chilly_bang@yahoo.de
This is (only) a bug in the Google Structured Data Testing Tool, not a bug in schema.org.

Dan B.: Could you relay this to the Google Structured Data Testing Tool team? Basically, they must make sure they

- understand in Microdata and RDFa syntax if an entity has more than one type from schema.org (others can be ignored) and
- accept as valid properties the union of the properties for all used schema.org types for this entity.

Thanks!

Martin

On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Chilly Bang wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> The "two types approach" isn't valid - Rich Snippet Testing Tool doesn't detect the second type and means, the property from the second type isn't part of the schema.
> 
> Here is an example, as i understand the "two types approach" relating to my issue:
> 
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e84e6adc79a951051ef6f09c3f62
> 
> The way with additionalType gives the same validation problem out: the type, setted with additionalType, isn't detected by Testing Tool, the property of the second type isn't part of the schema...
> 
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e84e9dd5fcb63ed38bef8ac3d69b
> 
> greets
> egon
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> schrieb am Di, 8.10.2013:
> 
> Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
> An: chilly_bang@yahoo.de
> CC: "Dan Scott" <dan@coffeecode.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org, aaranged@gmail.com
> Datum: Dienstag, 8. Oktober, 2013 14:23 Uhr
> 
> Hi Chilly,
> it is not a bug, but a feature - schema.org follows the idea
> that if you need multiple types (not exactly, but roughly
> what you mean with inheritance), you shall represent that at
> the *instance* level, not in the *schema*.
> 
> The choice is very pragmatic and effective: If you have
> certain types in a vocabulary that are not disjoint, you
> would otherwise have to materialize all (or at least a lot
> of reasonable) combinations. That would blow up the
> vocabulary significantly. Plus, many of the types we are
> discussing here represent *roles*, not rigid, essential
> types. So a book that is described as a product is simply
> the intersection of Book and Product. A book that is
> described in a non-commercial context is just a book.
> 
> Since the semantics of Product is essentially that of a
> Thing used as the object in an offer, a large share of
> schema.org types would have to appear as specializations of
> Product.
> 
> Multiple typing at instance level is NOT a workaround. It is
> a flexible modeling paradigm, rooted in the notion of
> facets.
> 
> Martin
>   
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Chilly Bang wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 9 October 2013 13:22:50 UTC

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