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 15:16:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU1LcHOe9LxqtUKSxBzGAN_9R-qUjEdNt+zPwTuWCxn0Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Clear, got it.

The only thing I seem to be unable to wrap my head around still, is why
does http://schema.org/Service exist and when would one use it?

Because if a http://schema.org/Product = 'Any offered product or service'
than why arent' http://schema.org/Product & http://schema.org/Service one
entity?
(like in Goodrelations) Currently both Product and Service can be used to
describe a service, which just doesn't make sense to me and which schema.org
doesn't clarify either.


2014-06-04 14:23 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:

> > ...schema:Product is not disjoint with any other type, so you can also
> offer a company, a place, a CreativeWork, etc.
> >
> >Wait a minute - "any other type"? @itemOffered has an expected value of
> Product. Isn't for example <div itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/Event">...</div> therefor a wrong >notation?
>
> That depends on the syntax, unfortunately:
>
> In an RDF syntax and with a RDFS reasoner present, when using an entity of
> type schema:Event with the property schema:itemOffered, the client will
> assume that the entity is also a schema:Product (actually, it will not with
> the standard representation of schema.org from
>
>     http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
>
> because there, domain and range are encoded via
>
>
>     http://schema.org/domainIncludes
>     http://schema.org/rangeIncludes
>
> instead of rdfs:range and rdfs:domain, but with the versions from
>
>     http://topbraid.org/schema/
>     http://schema.rdfs.org/
>
> the inferences will be drawn).
>
> In Microdata, however, you must declare the entity to be a schema:Event
> and schema:Product in order to be able to use the respective properties on
> the entity.
>
> This is the theory and does not say anything about how well this works
> with popular search engines.
>
> In general, I would hope that the major search engines can handle these
> patterns if the entity is explicitly set to be multi-type.
>
>
> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> 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 04 Jun 2014, at 01:45, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...schema:Product is not disjoint with any other type, so you can also
> offer a company, a place, a CreativeWork, etc.
> >
> > Wait a minute - "any other type"? @itemOffered has an expected value of
> Product. Isn't for example <div itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/Event">...</div> therefor a wrong notation?
> >
> >
> > 2014-06-04 0:07 GMT+02:00 Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>:
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 Wednesday, 4 June 2014 13:16:50 UTC

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