- From: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:12:21 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Cc: Hans Polak <info@polak.es>, "Martin Hepp (Google Docs)" <mfhepp@gmail.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACusdfTWRJ-gZMTC+VYSWqB1iA78Jjoc++AH=ADs5pq7u4EMfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Yep, and I'm sorry. I didn't mean for it to go like this I just wanted to help with Joe's original question around CampingPitch. That's my final take on how to tackle it soundly anyway. Sorry to everybody who wasn't interested after a certain point. Anthony On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2018 00:12:58 UTC