Re: Support non-commercial usage of schema.org/Offer - RDF(S) patch

Hi Elf:

Just a quick reply from the GoodRelations perspective:

The basic use-case should already be covered by the Demand type. Demand is essentially a reverse offer. The missing elements for your use-cases seems to be a more generic description of the expected compensation- In GoodRelations, while the notion of the compensation is generic ("I offer 1 kg of gold for 200 lb of good karma"), the elements support monetary compensations only, at the moment.

I will think of how this can be implemented in the conceptual model of GR. From the top of my head, a super-property to priceSpecification would already go far, like

expectedCompensation 

with a domain of Offer and (logically:or) Demand, and a range of schema:Thing.

This simple approach would have nice properties:

1. The case of asking for money is properly modeled as a special case.
2. One can model barter trade (e.g. in classifieds - "I want to trade in a pair of shoes for a pair of trousers"; use schema:SomeItems with additionalType for that one)
3. One can model that the expected compensation is a certain individual object ("I will wash your car for the Mona Lise painting", simply use schema:Individual with a DBPedia or Freebase URI for the object).

I have to think a bit more about whether that is sufficient to also model business functions on both sides ("I will mow your lawn five times for a used bike"). With schema:TypeAndQuantityNode, this should also be possible, but I have to double check.

So it seems that by adding this single superproperty, we would cover most of what you need.

General notice: I assume that this part of schema.org will be leading-edge e-commerce innovations, so do not expect the major search engines to honor such data immediately.

But on the other hand, it shows how nicely GoodRelations supports a huge range of scenarios with relatively few conceptual elements ;-)

Martin


On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:03 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:

> On 11/26/2013 08:07 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>> Ping... is there anything else I can do to help move this forward?
> +1
> 
> Dan, not sure if you noticed my post about work i start on online wishlists and *in-kind* donations: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Nov/0116.html
> 
> In general I plan to develop number of open source tools helpful for managing economic flows, based on linked data and giving most emphasis on non-commercial ways for sharing resources and services! Relevant CG (sadly not very active) http://www.w3.org/community/community-io/ and more overview minddump: http://polyeconomy.info/
> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>>> Hello:
>>> 
>>> Following the great discussion that began with
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0088.html I've
>>> put together a patch that addresses the bulk of the overly-commercial
>>> definitions in the current iteration of schema.org.
>>> 
>>> Apologies if the git diff format is inappropriate; I've been mirroring
>>> schema.org in a local git repo as the core pages do not appear to be
>>> available in the w3 webschema mercurial repo.
>>> 
>>> Please let me know if I should generate diffs for the individual type /
>>> property pages as well, rather than just
>>> http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
>> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 13:41:30 UTC