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

Re: Extending schema with 2 predicates "schema:houseNumber" and "schema:Box"

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <52693765.1050506@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Marc -

Can you give a definition of house number and box? (Different countries 
do addresses differently... we'll probably need very clear definitions.)

Also, box is a very common word for lots of things, so it would best get 
a qualifier, once we have the definition.

Thanks,
kc

On 10/24/13 7:15 AM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote:
> Hello there,
> We are working on the model of PostalAddress and wi think we need 2
> extra predicates in schema:
> The structure is as follows:
> <http://example.org/PostalAddress/PostalAddress#this>
>          a schema:PostalAddress;
>          schema:streetAddress "Via Pietro Panzeri, No 12/7";
>          schema:houseNumber "253";
>          schema:Box "23";
>          schema:postalCode "20139";
>          schema:addressLocality "Milan";
>          schema:addressRegion  "MI";
>          schema:addressCountry [a schema:Country; schema:name "Italy"].
>
> Here we need the 2 properties to have a complet addresse of someone:
>   "schema:houseNumber" and "schema:Box"
>
> Any feedback?
>
> Kind Regards,
> *
> Marc Twagirumukiza | **Agfa HealthCare*
> Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
> T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300
>
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com <http://www.agfahealthcare.com/>
> http://blog.agfahealthcare.com <http://blog.agfahealthcare.com/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Click on link to read important disclaimer:
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
>
>
>
> From: Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
> 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>
> Date: 23/10/2013 13:52
> Subject: Warning of "two type approach": visible rich snippets disappear
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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 <http://schema.org/>> with
>  >>>>>> a schema.org <http://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
> <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/additionalTypeis 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/additionalTypeis 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://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 <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 <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 Thursday, 24 October 2013 15:06:44 UTC

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