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

Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:20:59 +0200
Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BE959BCD-541E-4B73-A6AD-DD5AFF35CABD@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Cosmin Paun <cpaun88@gmail.com>
No. That is a usage that clients will very likely not understand.

On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Cosmin Paun wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 15 October 2013 09:21:57 UTC

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