On 17 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com<mailto:owen@ostephens.com>> wrote: 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. There is a subtle difference between a particular a Product - lawnmower, vacuum cleaner, car - and a type/category of product - toy lawnmower, toy vacuum cleaner, toy car. I’d suggest that ‘ageRange’ is a more general property and not something solely related to Toys. Totally agree, I would if proposing this suggest extending the range of typicalAgeRange<https://schema.org/typicalAgeRange> to include the Toy type. What benefit do you see having a ‘Toy’ type with no properties conferring? It is a pattern used elsewhere in Schema.org<http://Schema.org> indicating a more specific type of thing than the parent - for example Landform<https://schema.org/Landform> is a specific type of Place but has currently no extra properties. Not justification in itself I know. A Toy is just a Product, of many possible forms, satisfying play needs, as against a product of any old type.
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 11:22:37 UTC