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

Re: offeredBy to supersede vendor, merchant, provider, seller, ?

From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:39:45 +0000
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1D9DA49E-6EB4-48E5-8C5E-65BB68E7B39E@oclc.org>
I guess that would sort of go for @seller as well. Although @merchant and @vendor could be considered the same as @seller (well, at least by me). Maybe merging those into one property would be better.

That is fine for transactions that are commercially based.  There are also offer types to lend, borrow, give where @seller etc., is not a good fit.

@offeredBy is suitably generic to handle all types of offer, and maintain the relationship with the concept of Offer that Martin is concerned about.


~Richard

On 30 May 2014, at 11:51, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com<mailto:jarnovandriel@gmail.com>> wrote:

The basic concern was to maintain the notion that "an offer is the promise to transfer some rights on something"

I guess that would sort of go for @seller as well. Although @merchant and @vendor could be considered the same as @seller (well, at least by me). Maybe merging those into one property would be better.

And I also would be very much for not adding new types of @provider. IMHO one of those seems enough.


2014-05-30 12:43 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com<mailto:danbri@google.com>>:
On 30 May 2014 10:56, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com<mailto:jarnovandriel@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I know that the proposal for modification of MedicalEntity now also suggests
> @careProvider, yet another variant. Now during the discussion about that
> proposal I suggested to reuse @provider, because of more or less the same
> reasons Chaals indicates.
>
> So I'm  for @offeredBy.
>
> I do wonder though if there are any consequences for @seller and @provider.
> If I understand it right those came with Goodrelations and would like to
> know if @offeredBy could cause any conflict there.

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.

Dan
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 11:40:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC