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

Re: Person job proposal (was Re: Schema.org proposal: Financial information)

From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:44:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU3gVHDgee4Y-z2rRquZCa+=KORt5SHGQdYSYmVAfRWNGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
>
> "Which I think finds it origin in the fact that few are aware multi-type
> entities can be used."


Supplement: And because Google generates a Rich snippet for Product but not
Service!

2014-09-19 11:35 GMT+02:00 Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>:

> "Could be; I did not because offers comes from the "old" schema.org ecommerce
>> model (in GR the link is from the Offer to the Product, not vice versa).
>> But if this property is meant to live, it could be added to Service, too.
>> "
>
>
> So far I've been using MTEs to express a Service offers an Offer, which
> works but I've always considered it a bit cumbersome.
>
> Next to that I've also encountered quite some sites (sorry, no URL out the
> top of my head) where I saw services being marked up as a Product so
> 'offers' could be used. Which I think finds it origin in the fact that few
> are aware multi-type entities can be used.
>
> Adding 'offers' to Service maybe could help Service be used more often as
> opposed to falsely using Product.
>
> 2014-09-19 11:22 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:
>
> Could be; I did not because offers comes from the "old" schema.org
>> ecommerce model (in GR the link is from the Offer to the Product, not vice
>> versa).
>>
>> But if this property is meant to live, it could be added to Service, too.
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2014, at 22:34, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Can the one submitting the respective pull request please make sure
>> that the additional rangeIncludes statements are added to chema:itemOffered
>> and schema:typeOfGood?
>> >
>> > Shouldn't 'offers' be added to Service as well than?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-09-18 22:14 GMT+02:00 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:15 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
>> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>> > > and maybe while on it, for schema:itemOffered we could extend
>> > > schema:rangeIncludes with Service and Role ?
>> > >
>> > > :)
>> > >
>> >
>> > See above. We must do that.
>> >
>> > Can the one submitting the respective pull request please make sure
>> that the additional rangeIncludes statements are added to chema:itemOffered
>> and schema:typeOfGood?
>> >
>> > I'll update the proposal and circulate that before putting together a
>> pull request.
>> >
>> > - Vicki
>> >
>> > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 09:45:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC