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

If you wanted to solve the problem at the root you could have two
additional top-level types to classify things as suitable for sale or rent,
having an offer not being a requirement. Then anything could be multi-typed
with one or both of these:

    Things
        Events
        Organizations
        People
        Places
        *Rentable things*
        *Salable things*
        ...

It's probably not necessary though if there aren't many use cases.

Instead individual use cases like RentableCampsite could be added on
as-needed basis, and if more use cases arise this might be a general
solution.

Anthony


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:44 AM Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
wrote:

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