- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:16:08 +0200
- To: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Hi, I think the matter does not deserve deep philosophical discussions (though entering the theory of "échanges non-commerciaux" for LeSchéma.org would be undoubtedly be fun ;-) ) If we have "make an exchange", we'll be asked anyway to provide examples to make it more concrete anyway, I'm afraid! Worst case, we can tell them that the root of our problem is to include non-commercial offers. Antoine > This could be read as implying three types of offers: > > 1) sell a product > 2) provide a service > 3) make an exchange > > The 3rd option seems to encompass the 1st two, which seems odd. The concept of "exchange" seems quite right, though. Perhaps incorporating the concept of "transaction" somehow? This wording is awkward, but something like "an offer to transact an exchange of a product or service". > > At that point, it occurred to me to check out how GoodRelations dealt with it: > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#Offering > > I hadn't noticed this before, but they use a much more verbose rdfs:comment to convey the > meaning of the term compared to the one or sentences used in Schema.org <http://Schema.org>: > > http://schema.org/Offer > > It's also interesting to look at various dictionary definitions of the term and see how words > like this allow for some natural margin of flexibility. Oddly enough, my French dictionary > has a definition that says everything that GoodRelations says in two sentences. Schema.org <http://Schema.org> > would be so much more flexible it was all in French. ;-) > > Jeff > > Sent via a cracked screen :-( > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:11 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: > >> Yes, Antoine, very much agreed. I think that we simply want to know if we have the option of changing such a definition so that it is not limited to "sell." If the consensus of the public-vocab list is that it's too late to make such a change, then we know we need to take a different approach. >> >> I'll suggest: >> >> "An offer to sell a product, provide a service, or make an exchange between parties." >> >> kc >> >> On 7/17/13 3:32 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>> Hi Karen, >>> >>> >>>> I'm listening to the meeting recording (it's amazing how much more it >>>> makes sense the second time around!). Antoine made a good proposal >>>> about asking the general vocab list about the possibility of modifying >>>> definitions of properties like "offer". Right now, this is the >>>> definition for offer: >>>> >>>> "An offer to sell an item—for example, an offer to sell a product, the >>>> DVD of a movie, or tickets to an event." >>>> >>>> I think we could describe our case for using offer and ask about the >>>> community's feeling about making the definition a bit more general. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, but as said in the call I'd insist on not describing the case >>> entirely (i.e, with 150 different attributes, FRBR chains, what have you >>> not...). Just making the point for motivating that there are 'free >>> offers' that we'd like to represent using the schema.org/Offer <http://schema.org/Offer> class. >>> Otherwise the WebSchema guys won't even care reading the email (and >>> rightfully so). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >>
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 07:16:39 UTC