Re: How to encode a product family?

> On May 3, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
> +Martin Hepp
> 
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:01, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@apple.com> wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I am trying to encode the following things in Schema.org:
>> 
>> 1. "iPhone is a Product family."
>> 
>> 2. "iPhone 6s is part of the iPhone Product family."
>> 
>> 3. all the Products of a Product family would be related to each other (schema:isRelatedTo), and/or similar to each other (schema:isSimilarTo).
>> 
>> Except for 3., I cannot find something that would capture exactly the notion of Product family.
> 
> 
> You might look at http://schema.org/ProductModel and isVariantOf ("A
> pointer to a base product from which this product is a variant. It is
> safe to infer that the variant inherits all product features from the
> base model, unless defined locally. This is not transitive.") and
> predecessorOf/successorOf (which I now see should be marked as mutual
> inverses, issue filed as
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1142 ).
> 
> I guess you'd need to figure out the constant "essence of iPhone" and
> make a generic ProductModel for that, and then relate them. I'm not
> sure how deep you'd want this to go e.g. I have an (excellent if
> ageing) iPad Mini, presumably part of an iPad Product family; would se
> use isSimilarTo vs iSvariantOf to link iPhone and iPad families
> together?

Alright, it seems like people agree that ProductModel is the right thing :-)

I agree that the properties defined on ProductModel (e.g. isVariantOf) capture the right notions, but I'm not 100% convinced by the definition of ProductModel captures well the product family notion.

Maybe this could be added to the main definition? What do you think?

Alexandre

> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> Any idea?
>> 
>> Alexandre

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 15:22:50 UTC