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

If you're talking from the customer side then yeah you're right, it's only
relevant to a customer whether something has a sell/rent offer attached to
it.

If you're talking from the supplier side then the second meaning is also
relevant, firstly whether something is fit or suitable for sale/rent, then
secondly whether the supplier decides to attach one or more sell/rent
offers.

Publishers are generally suppliers right?

Anthony

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:14 AM Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>