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

Feels like this thread is going around in circles here, unless I'm missing
something . Perhaps you could pursue this discussion in a Github issue, to
save everyone's mailboxes?

Dan

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 16:43, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
wrote:

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