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

Re: Can a Product also be a Service or does it require a MTE?

From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:07:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU0i+S+2=kOAxuNwsb9nUT_iK9PJ6Oi+q+e6NszvH5vRmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Thanks for explaining Martin, most is clear to me except when to use the
Service entity by itself.
Because if 'Any offered product or service' = ProductOrService then when
would one choose to use just the Service type; only in non-commercial cases?



2014-06-03 19:14 GMT+02:00 <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:

>
> On 03 Jun 2014, at 11:25, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > After reading the description of http://schema.org/Product I got a bit
> confused. It says:
> > "Any offered product or *service*. For example: a pair of shoes; a
> concert ticket; *the rental of a car*; *a haircut*; or an episode of a TV
> show streamed online."
> >
> As for rental etc. of physical products: This is straightforward, since
> the bundle of rights offered by the offer is defined by the
> gr/schema:BusinessFunction. When you rent a car, you just obtain temporary
> usage etc. See the definitions at
>
> http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#BusinessFunction
>
>         • gr:ConstructionInstallation
>         • gr:Dispose
>         • gr:LeaseOut
>         • gr:Maintain
>         • gr:ProvideService
>         • gr:Repair
>         • gr:Sell
>         • gr:Buy
>
>
> > The 'service' mentioned made twitch a bit since I thought we have
> http://schema.org/Service for this. Now I looked up ProductOrService on
> the Goodrelations site (
> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Product_or_Service)
> and this page mentions 3 types of Product entities specifically but doesn't
> mention Service.
>
> schema:Product is equivalent to gr:ProductOrService. The reason for the
> naming difference is that schema:Product existed before GR was integrated.
>
> The subtypes of schema:Product / gr:ProductOrService are for indicating
> more precisely whether you are talking of
>
> - a concrete individual (e.g. a car with a VIN, a computer with a serial
> number, ...)
> - a bag of anonymous products (a bit complicated to explain, I admit) and
> - a product model, essentially a datasheet that defines properties for
> actualy products.
>
> >
> > So if it's true that Product also can mean a service, than in which case
> is one supposed to use Service?
>
> In essence, being a product is a role that a thing can take by being the
> object of an offer. schema:Product is not disjoint with any other type, so
> you can also offer a company, a place, a CreativeWork, etc.
>
> >
> > And if a Product also can be a Service, would one then only use a
> Multiple-Type-Entity like 'Product Service' when the Product needs
> properties that are part of Service (or inversed)?
>
> If you need properties from another type for describing the product, then
> a multi-typed entity is the proper way of modeling, yes.
>
> Martin
>
> >
> > --
> > Jarno van Driel
> > Technical & Semantic SEO Consultant
> > 8 Digits - Digital Marketing Technologies
> >
> > Tel: +31 652 847 608
> > Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JarnovanDriel
> > Linkedin: linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/
>
>


-- 
*Jarno van Driel*
Technical & Semantic SEO Consultant
8 Digits - Digital Marketing Technologies

Tel: +31 652 847 608
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JarnovanDriel
Linkedin: linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 22:07:41 UTC

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