- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:19:56 +0200
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 10/07/2014 01:56 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
> I am not sure I understand the problem here, but keep in mind that schema:Product is a *role* that a schema:Thing can have: that of being the object of a schema:Offer.
> schema:Product is conceptually not disjoint from any other type (socially likely from some, e.g. schema:Person, ...).
>
> So there is not necessarily a formal inconsistency here. schema:Product stresses that the entity is / could be related to a schema:Offer, but other types do not rule out that.
I understand your point, but I guess that in case of Twitter and
Instagram someone have given them type Product from lack of more obvious
choice (I would still prefer to use schema:Thing in such cases)
>From properties added by http://schema.org/Product IMO hardly any makes
sense for Twitter and Instagram, maybe except audience.
Looking at http://schema.org/Service it also has serviceAudience (issue
just filled[1]). More than that *provider* and sub type *WebService*
could define IMO very needed *termsOfService*.
BTW Service may need some more tweaking, currently
Service --{serviceArea}--> AdministrativeArea
Service --{serviceAudience}--> Audience --{geographicArea}-->
AdministrativeArea
I just add it to issue below!
[1] https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/issues/145
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:22:08 UTC