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

Warning of "two type approach": visible rich snippets disappear

From: Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:51:07 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <1382529067.89033.YahooMailBasic@web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
To: Cosmin Paun <cpaun88@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi!

I have even tested the visibility of rich snippets in my page with two types approach: if using two types, the rich snippets disappear (rating stars, price, reviews amount). After deleting of the second type the rich snippets are back.


--------------------------------------------
Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> schrieb am Di, 15.10.2013:

 Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
 An: "Cosmin Paun" <cpaun88@gmail.com>
 CC: "Guha" <guha@google.com>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "W3C Vocabularies" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
 Datum: Dienstag, 15. Oktober, 2013 11:20 Uhr
 
 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 Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:51:35 UTC

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