Re: Eurocentrism, incorrect unit abbreviations, and proprietary Royalist Engish (sic) terms

There are many ways of modeling the same facts, e.g. subclasses, relationships or attributes. Schema.org uses a typed relationship to an offer to indicate whether a thing is buyable or rentable. That is unlikely to change.

It also has a lot of advantages, e.g.
- there can be multiple offers referring to the same thing in parallel,
- a thing that has been sold does not cease to exist (google „OntoClean“ for background),
- there is a natural way of attaching meta-data of the offer
and more.
Best wishes
Martin 

---------------------------------------
martin hepp
www:  http://www.heppnetz.de/
email: mhepp@computer.org


> Am 16.07.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>:
> 
> Saying something is suitable for renting is just as valid as saying something is suitable for anything else, e.g.:
> 
> Venue
>     MusicVenue
> 
> ParkingSpace
>     RentableParkingSpace
> 
> Campsite
>     RentableCampsite
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:41 AM Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with you, I wrote that at 3 am and it's sloppy explanation and wrong and I'm sorry, the structure is still valid though. If you follow the dictionary definition of "rentable" then the mountain is a rentable mountain if it's presently true that it is "available or suitable for renting", "suitable" being the key word that shows an offer isn't required, don't even need to go to the OWA for an explanation, it's part of the definition of rentable.
>> 
>> My point was meant to be that with the Campsite/RentableCampsite structure even uncommon scenarios where entire campsites are available as a whole for rent can be handled, in that case the campsite could be more narrowly classified as a RentableCampsite in just the same manner as the numbered sites that are part of it.
>> 
>> Anthony
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:25 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 08:00, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Since the Web of Data is using the Open-World Assumption, the fact that you do not have a triple at hand that refers to a mountain as included in an offer does not imply that it is not rentable etc.
>>> 
>>> and yet it is so convenient to read meaning into missing data, e.g. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1365#issuecomment-405212998
>>>  
>>>> It really makes no sense to attach commercial properties to things, they are much better attached to offers that refer to things. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of the GoodRelations conceptual model: That products and offers are best represented as two distinct entities. I am sure this idea had been around before GoodRelations.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps a variation on  "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection 
>>> 
>>> Dan
>>>  
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Martin Hepp
>>>> 
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
>>>> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> > On 13 Jul 2018, at 12:06, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > On Martin's point, because there isn't temporal logic everything should be assumed present tense. So "rentable" implies "presently rentable" not "potentially rentable in the future". So even though it's theoretically possible to rent out a mountain it's not a rentable mountain in my view until the offer exists.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Anthony
>>>> > 
>>>> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:34 AM Hans Polak <info@polak.es> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > On 13/07/18 01:25, Joe Duarte wrote:
>>>> >> We could easily write a spec mapping the human syntax to machine-readable codes.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Last time I checked, "easily" was not the case. I believe that human syntax is quite complicated to map... but I am not a linguist.
>>>> > 
>>>> > If we are "divided" on how to use a word, how are we going to be "united" on grammar?
>>>> > 
>>>> > My €0,02
>>>> > 
>>>> > ~ Hans
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> 
>>>>