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

Hi Elf:

Quickly: I think the whole topic should stay under the Offer and Demand branch, since this is the central place for representing actions that you promise to carry out.

I understand that, conceptually, the Action type and branch refers to actual actions (things that someone did, is doing, or will do). The whole idea of GoodRelations is about information for discovering and filtering options, while the actual transaction is outside the scope.

By the way, the original (2008) technical report on GoodRelations may still be useful literature for understanding the basic conceptual choices:

    http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/GoodRelations-TR-final.pdf

It does not reflect the changes that have been made since 2008, so one has to read it in the light of

a) the Changelog

    http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Changelog

in particular the renaming of a few elements in

    http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Changelog/20110401,

and

b) the naming differences between the original elements in GoodRelations and the schema.org version of GoodRelations

   http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org

Martin

On Dec 6, 2013, at 2:28 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:

> On 12/05/2013 02:41 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> Hi Elf:
> Hi Martin :)
> 
>> 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.
> Thank you for taking your time and helping with your expertise in this field!
> 
> I find interesting case in current Action sub tree where we find schema:TransferAction and schema:TradeAction
> 
> I have impression that in your explanation you focused on what would fit under TradeAction. Where currently people put most emphasis on its special case: *Trading* real goods and services *Product*-s for virtual tokens like dollar, euro, bitcoin, dropis, evrgr etc. (monetary currencies)
> 
> Realizing issues of such virtual tokens, more people *Trades* with units more grounded in physical reality like hours (timebanking) and could also use KWH from electric grid, airmiles, trainmiles, busmiles ,h/day tickets of local public transport, L of petrol from certain network of stations etc.(assets shares) or simply do barter *Product* for *Product* as you suggested.
> 
> Myself I find even greater potential in what can fit under TransferAction! With some way of describing various *conditions*, some examples of what *conditions* one could attach to *Offer*:
> * required past contributions to open source *SoftwareApplication*-s included in list (verified by commits history)
> * required past contributions to *Organization*-s included in list (verified by logs in task management or with something like http://openbadges.org)
> * required no records of 'crimes' included in the list (it might take WoT in place...)
> In general offering products under such *conditions* can enable people to leverage their *social karma* (not mesured in lb ;) and empower those who do contribute to our common wealth!
> 
>> 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 ;-)
> 
> I understand that as for today *meaningless* virtual tokens (monetary currencies) still stay dominant when it comes to arranging Trading/Transfer of *Product*-s. At the same time I see them becoming of less significance, or even completely deprecated, once we put in place diversity of alternative ways, strongly grounded in physical reality, to arrange Trading/Transfer of *Product*-s (non-monetary currencies) IMO Semantic Web technologies enable us to design such *meaningful* currencies... very exciting times! :D
> 
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
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 Friday, 6 December 2013 07:04:54 UTC