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: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:01 +0200
Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8DDF144F-F60F-4341-89A9-7A9D4F17D924@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
I see - as long as there is a clear line between public services and offers in the commercial or non-commercial sense, I think we can leave it like that. The overlap is not that big then. But we should have it on the watchlist - if there is the request for new properties for schema:Service, let's try to properly relate it to schema:Offer and schema:Product


On 20 Sep 2014, at 10:08, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 20 September 2014 08:38, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2014, at 22:40, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks Martin and Thad.
>>> So... The rest of you looks at Product as if it is ProductOrService.
>>> In that case (see it coming?): How does the rest of you look at Service?
>> I suppose that "Service" was once added for some specific, but maybe only hypothetical use-case by one of the sponsors of schema.org.
> I believe it came relatively late, in support of its subtype,
> http://schema.org/GovernmentService
> see http://blog.schema.org/2013/08/vocabulary-for-describing-civic-services.html
> see also https://web.archive.org/web/20131210070108/http://schema.org/Service
> Dan
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 08:18:33 UTC

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