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: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 18:00:51 +0200
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <85654004-8EC7-404C-8F72-0921F1C13665@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Well, if you know that something is a service and you need the service-specific properties, then using http://schema.org/Service may make some sense.
We could expand the range of properties that expect Product to the union of Product and Service.


Martin




On 04 Jun 2014, at 15:16, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Grόίen
> 
> 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 16:01:20 UTC

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