> On 17 Apr 2015, at 11:52, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote: > >> When is a Toy not a Product - When drawing up the list several potential subtypes, that trawling library data identified, were dropped. Things such as DVD, LPRecord because they were just individual types of product (carrier in library parlance). Game was dropped because it has already appeared in the Schema.org <http://schema.org/> core. Toy was left in as it was more a category of product, many products puppet, jigsaw, etc., can also be a toy. The proposal, recognising this, proposed a Product subtype with no extra properties. May be at a later date further her work would suggest ageRange an other Toy properties. > >> One counter option could be to define a Toy as the Product that it actually is (puppet, etc.) and multi-type it as also being a <http://www.productontology.org/doc/Toy <http://www.productontology.org/doc/Toy>> >> I think you’ve done my job for me here :) That is exactly the counter option I’d propose. If there are no properties assigned to the type I struggle to see the need for the type given the agreed convention for assigning product types. I’d suggest that ‘ageRange’ is a more general property and not something solely related to Toys. What benefit do you see having a ‘Toy’ type with no properties conferring?
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 11:00:37 UTC