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 18:37:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU1HchQq+AUPv7jct36o=-jYCa2TwJ+gBFRkwkMcua8FSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I think that could do the trick. I'm not sure though if it makes sense for
properties like: isAccessoryOrSparePartFor, isConsumableFor, itemShipped,
owns, typeOfGood. But he, that would be the situation as well if we were to
merge Product and Service into one type, so I see no problem there.

And by expanding the range the need for an MTE would be diminished as well,
which I consider a good thing. One would be able to express <div
itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Service">
without having to pull in Product.

Are there any reasons why the range shouldn't be expanded to Product &
Service?


2014-06-04 18:00 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:

> 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 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/
>
>


-- 
*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 16:38:12 UTC

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