Re: Best schema to use for services

Hi Martin,

You may want to check out the Civic Services proposal at
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/CivicServices. Our original goal was to
model government services, but we tried to create an outline for other
types of services as well.

Any comments are appreciated,
Vicki

Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com



On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Martin Hepp <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi David:
>
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:45 PM, David Deering wrote:
>
> > Thank you for those responses, Jarno and Martin.  Jarno, unfortunately
> for some reason the links to your site did not open. Not sure why.
> >
> > Martin, thanks for those links and references.  I apologize if my
> questions seem "simple", but can a page be marked up with GoodRelations and
> not fear being soon outdated?  And will GoodRelations be around for a while
> or will it eventually be replaced by schema.org codes?  And can a page
> use both schemas and GoodRelations codes without any problems being
> deciphered by the search engines?
> >
> > David Deering
> >
>
> The answer is simple: GoodRelations is now an integral part of schema.organd the new, more advanced model for e-commerce uses of
> schema.org.
> Technically, schema.org is just another syntax for GoodRelations, i.e.
> the conceptual model of GoodRelations is (almost) fully available from
> within the schema.org namespace.
>
> If you use the more advanced e-commerce features of schema.org, you are
> de facto using GoodRelations, even without knowing.
>
> Except for a few classes and properties, all conceptual elements from
> GoodRelations have been integrated into schema.org. A few elements have
> slightly different names, as documented here
>
>     http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org
>
> GoodRelations will remain an independent activity, but we will do our
> utmost to keep the official version of GoodRelations in sync with the
> version included in schema.org.
>
> For search engine purposes, GoodRelations can be used in both the original
> and the schema.org namespace. Ideally, it will not matter for the search
> engines which namespace you use. Currently, GoodRelations is understood by
> Google in RDFa in both the original and the schema.org namespace (to the
> degree Google supports RDFa correctly. In Microdata syntax, GoodRelations
> is currently only supported from the schema.org namespace.
>
> From a Semantic Web perspective, one will be able to consume GoodRelations
> data from both namespaces (original and within schema.org) in the same
> manner. For that purpose, the next service release of GoodRelations will
> include bidirectional mapping rules.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Martin
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>