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 08:53:17 -0700
Message-ID: <5269426D.5020701@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Marc,

I don't know of anything equivalent to the boxNumber in the US (and I'm 
still not sure I understand what it is), but I live in an area where 
most houses are stand-alone buildings -- perhaps someone in a big city 
can speak to that. However, we have something called "PO Box" which is 
when someone rents a postal box in a separate space (a post office or 
special store) that isn't part of their home. If there will be a general 
address type then that would also need to be covered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_box

kc

On 10/24/13 8:34 AM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote:
> Interesting point Mo!
> But maybe we will not go as far as that with apartments/units/ and
> flats. By the way the HouseNumber corresponds to the apartment in most
> of case (eg. 403B, 403C, etc) and the BoxNumber corresponds really to
> the leaves level (the door) eg 403C/12.
> So I think the two predicates may be enough for now.
> When the house has no number our clients may use a structure up to the
> streetName.
> I guess you understand the issue of not having this complete structure
> here.
>
> Kind Regards,
> *
> *Marc
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Click on link to read important disclaimer:
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
>
>
>
> From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
> To: Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA@AGFA
> Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> Date: 24/10/2013 17:23
> Subject: Re: Extending schema with 2 predicates "schema:houseNumber" and
>   "schema:Box"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> A couple of things?
>
> Some houses (depending upon country) don?t have numbers at all, only names.
>
> Also, if you?re going to break it up into house name/number and street
> address, apartments/units/flats will also need to be called out separately.
>
> Ordinarily, one either overloads ?street address? to contain all of the
> information more specific than street name, or one must specify all of
> the possible properties (accounting for all of the different address
> formats in the world, more or less).
>
> For example, this is how Royal Mail in the UK specifies addresses:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File
>
> M.
>
> On  2013-Oct-24, at 15:15, Marc Twagirumukiza
> <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> 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/
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
> MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk <http://www.bbc.co.uk/>
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>
>
> ----- Message from Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> on Thu, 24 Oct
> 2013 15:22:37 +0000 -----
> *To:*
> 	
> Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>
> *cc:*
> 	
> W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> *Subject:*
> 	
> Re: Extending schema with 2 predicates "schema:houseNumber" and "schema:Box"
>
>
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> A couple of things…
>
> Some houses (depending upon country) don’t have numbers at all, only names.
>
> Also, if you’re going to break it up into house name/number and street
> address, apartments/units/flats will also need to be called out separately.
>
> Ordinarily, one either overloads ‘street address’ to contain all of the
> information more specific than street name, or one must specify all of
> the possible properties (accounting for all of the different address
> formats in the world, more or less).
>
> For example, this is how Royal Mail in the UK specifies addresses:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File
>
> M.
>
> On  2013-Oct-24, at 15:15, Marc Twagirumukiza
> <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> 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/
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
> MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E
>
> [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA]

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 15:53:45 UTC

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