W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2016

Re: offers package?

From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@redlink.co>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:06:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOfJQJ0jxN-iGF2siUdtQkVeswUmzCm1eLPbHNur8kxBJyAfwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Alfonso Noriega <alfonso.noriega@redlink.co>, Anna Fensel <anna.fensel@sti2.at>
Hi Martin,

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://schema.org/TypeAndQuantityNode should already offer everything
> you need for bundles.
>
> So simply use a standard https://schema.org/Offer and attach multiple
> https://schema.org/TypeAndQuantityNode entities via
> https://schema.org/includesObject to that offer.
>
> By that, you can indicate the quanty and business function of all the
> goods included in the offer (e.g. 2 nights in a hotel and 4 slices of white
> bread and a free massage).
>

So

<#example-package> a schema:Offer ;
   rdfs:label "..." ;
   schema:availabilityStarts "2016-06-02" ;
   schema:availabilityEnds "2016-06-30" ; ... schema:includesObject
<#example-offer-1> ;
schema:includesObject <#example-offer-2> .

It could work, right....

One issue is that currently the range of typeOfGood is only schema:Product.
But that should be easy to solve, see
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/1194

Another issue is that the instances of TypeAndQuantityNode would link to
the Products/Services, so we'll loose the original Offers we would be
packaging. So for that we can simply use the schema:itemOffered, but we
would be miss the cardinality feature.

We'll think about the options... Thanks for your support, Martin.

Cheers,



> On 01 Jun 2016, at 12:53, Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@redlink.co>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the TourPack project we have one question we'd like to discuss with
> the community regarding packaging offers in schema.org. For us a package
> is a set of offers provided to the user, what typically expedia.com
> offers, for instance.
> >
> > So, looking the the current options we have:
> >
> > * In principle the class schema:Offer [2] can be used with that purposed
> by composing offers using the itemOffered property [3]; but the range is
> Product/Service, not Offer.
> >
> > * The semantics of AggregateOffer [4] is more about different offer over
> the same item, either Product or Service; so I think we can discard it.
> >
> > Therefore we have the question if we may need a new class
> (OfferPackage?) that, being a subClassOf Offer, would address that
> particular meaning or we simply stick with Offer.
> >
> > For now we just want to discuss the issue. But if the community agrees
> on the need of such class, we'll of course provide a proposal to the schema.
> >
> > Looking forward to your feedback.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alfonso and Sergio
> >
> > [1] http://tourpack.sti2.at/
> > [2] http://schema.org/Offer
> > [3] http://schema.org/itemOffered
> > [4] http://schema.org/AggregateOffer
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sergio Fernández
> > Partner Technology Manager
> > Redlink GmbH
> > m: +43 6602747925
> > e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> > w: http://redlink.co
>
>


-- 
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:07:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:26 UTC