Re: Proposal for “OrganicCertification” Schema in Product Listings

Yes, absolutely let’s address this usecase. But investigating now much can
be squeezed from existing vocabulary, especially creating a set of new
subtypes unless modeling new info requires it

Dan

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 04:35 Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org> wrote:

> +1 to the direction of travel on this.
>
> A product is likely to have multiple certifications and, in the real
> world, there might be multiple certifications of similar types (USDA
> organic, UK Soil Association Organic etc). What matters is that there is
> "a" cert associated with something. The details of that cert can be
> contained within it and the user can decide which ones they care about.
> This keeps the modelling as simple as possible while being completely
> flexible.
>
> If you want a handy enumerated list of organic claim agencies, the GS1 Web
> Voc has one. See https://ref.gs1.org/voc/OrganicClaimAgencyCode which
> provides values for the https://ref.gs1.org/voc/organicClaimAgency
> property.
>
> HTH
>
> Phil
>
> ---
>
> Phil Archer
> Web Solutions Director, GS1
> https://www.gs1.org
>
> https://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher.bsky.social
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohith Agadi | Fact Protocol <mohith@fact.technology>
> Sent: 20 November 2024 06:55
> To: Micah McG <mcglabs@gmail.com>
> Cc: Marie Seshat Landry <marielandryceo@gmail.com>;
> public-schemaorg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for “OrganicCertification” Schema in Product Listings
>
> "If you imagine that every certification would have its own type the
> schema would be unnecessarily large" agreed on this.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Mohith Agadi
> Co-founder, Fact Protocol
>
>
> E: mohith@fact.technology
> P: +1-302-365-0606 (WhatsApp)
> P: +91-9035211411
> W: https://fact.technology/
>
> Connect with me on:
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/MohithAgadi/>  | LinkedIn <
> https://linkedin.com/in/MohithAgadi/>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 23:55 Micah McG <mcglabs@gmail.com <mailto:
> mcglabs@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>         The schema is very flexible and imo you wouldn't need a type for
> organic certification.. If you imagine that every certification would have
> its own type the schema would be unnecessarily large as it retains
> flexibility to shape most use cases currently.
>
>         Consider this example:
>         {
>           "@context": "https://schema.org",
>           "@type": "Certification",
>           "name": "Organic Certification",
>           "description": "Certification ensuring compliance with organic
> farming and production standards.",
>           "certificationIdentification": {
>             "@type": "DefinedTerm",
>             "name": "USDA Organic",
>             "termCode": "ORG-001",
>             "url": "https://example.org/usda-organic-certification"
>           },
>           "provider": {
>             "@type": "Organization",
>             "name": "Organic Standards Agency",
>             "url": "https://example.org/organic-standards"
>           },
>           "validFrom": "2024-11-19",
>           "expires": "2026-11-18",
>           "url": "https://example.org/organic-certification-details"
>         }
>
>         Gives all the information necessary and moving into the age of
> LLMs, think they'd be able to understand the structure quite well. Try
> asking an LLM for examples and you can use the above example in your prompt.
>
>
>         On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:38 PM Marie Seshat Landry <
> marielandryceo@gmail.com <mailto:marielandryceo@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>                 Subject: Proposal for “OrganicCertification” Schema in
> Product Listings
>
>                 Dear Public Schema.org Community,
>
>                 I would like to bring attention to an important GitHub
> issue discussing the proposal of adding an “OrganicCertification” as a
> subtype under “Certifications” in the Product schema. This proposal aims to
> improve how search engines can identify and prioritize certified organic
> products, enhancing transparency and promoting eco-friendly practices.
>
>                 For more details, please review the full discussion here:
> GitHub Issue #4290 <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/4290> .
>
>                 Best regards,
>
>                 Marie Seshat Landry
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are
> confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or
> acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium).
> If you are not the addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to you in
> error, you must not use data herein for any purpose, you must delete it,
> and should inform the sender.
> GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, and opinions
> expressed are those of the author alone.
> GS1 may monitor communications.
> Third party rights acknowledged.
> (c) 2020.
>