W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

(wrong string) €?

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:05:07 +0200
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <10A3CCF2-D934-44A2-95FA-1BCEBD86238E@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Simon:
gr:Offering is not limited to binding or commercial offers. The non-binding character has been in the textual definition since 2008:

"An offering represents the public, not necessarily binding, not necessarily exclusive, announcement by a gr:BusinessEntity to provide (or seek) a certain gr:BusinessFunction for a certain gr:ProductOrService to a specified target audience. An offering is specified by the type of product or service or bundle it refers to, what business function is being offered (sales, rental, ...), and a set of commercial properties."

Historically, gr:Offering could represent the supply and the demand side; this explains the "or seek" part. We fixed that when integrating GR into schema.org, creating http://schema.org/Demand, which will be gr:Demand in the next GR service update.



Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Gren

Martin Hepp

-------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
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/




On 30 May 2014, at 19:14, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 2014 6:45 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> > Thanks. I had a brief exchange with Martin Hepp yesterday - he has some concerns that we maintain some of the conceptual distinctions underlying Good Relations, will go into more detail next week.
> 
> >The basic concern was to maintain the notion that "an offer is the promise to transfer some rights on >something", and that if we use the word "offer", that's what it should continue to mean.
> That's a slightly loose definition of offer (at least, in the GR context);  in the sense used in GR  it appears to be  "an offer is a display of willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract" (Black's Law Dictionary). 
> 
> 'vendor' and 'seller' are synonyms.  
> 
> merchant has legal connotations (a merchant may be held to a higher standard of expertise than a nonmerchant) , and does not apply to one providing services. 
> 
> Legally binding promises can be made to transfer temporary possession/right of occupancy, etc (without changing ownership); renting/leasing. However, promises to make gifts are generally not binding, and do not fit neatly into the offer/acceptance paradigm. 
> 
> Vocabulary is cheap.   Lawyers, less so. 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 08:05:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC