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

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

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:14:44 +0200
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5F6B8104-324E-46D8-900E-92D1A1ADF6AF@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Note that schema:Product is actually schema:ProductOrService, because many data-sources (e.g. shop systems) cannot properly distinguish between products and services.

I think we should revise schema:Service very carefully before recommending it for broader use. It seems to mix the the notion of offer and service, duplicates properties from schema:Offer and schema:Product, and is not properly related to neither the GoodRelations e-commerce model nor the Actions branch, IMO.

E.g.

produces	Thing 	The tangible thing generated by the service, e.g. a passport, permit, etc.

--> seems to be the inverse of http://schema.org/manufacturer

provider	Person  or Organization 	The service provider, service operator, or service performer; the goods producer. Another party (a seller) may offer those services or goods on behalf of the provider. A provider may also serve as the seller. Supersedes carrier.

--> seems to be equivalent to http://schema.org/manufacturer

serviceArea	AdministrativeArea	The geographic area where the service is provided.

--> seems to be equivalent to eligibleRegion. Also one could challenge whether this is a property of the service or the offer to provide the service.

serviceAudience	Audience 	The audience eligible for this service.

--> seems to be equivalent to very similar to http://schema.org/eligibleCustomerType

serviceType	Text 	The type of service being offered, e.g. veterans' benefits, emergency relief, etc.

--> This could also achieved via http://schema.org/category or, if it is a URL, http://schema.org/additionalType.


Best

Martin




On 19 Sep 2014, at 11:44, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> "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 12:15:11 UTC

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