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 14:20:25 +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: <01B839B4-567A-430D-928D-89882E9D6494@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>

On 19 Sep 2014, at 11:35, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> "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. 
I think that is currently the best practice, given the incomplete alignment with schema:Offer.

> 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. 

schema:Product is fine for those cases.

> Which I think finds it origin in the fact that few are aware multi-type entities can be used.
No, it is because the definition of schema:Product is

"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."

> Adding 'offers' to Service maybe could help Service be used more often as opposed to falsely using Product.

It is not falsely used, IMO.

Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 12:20:50 UTC

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