- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:44:41 -0600
- To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaMyOAcCo6G-VnW0a1R9QfjOPfRDAz16g04rpXjhgxhSwg@mail.gmail.com>
But Yannis is asking about making the connections of a Product to an Industry, I think. For instance, he is selling some Product: A roll of wire. What industry is he in ? What industry is he primarily interested in selling or marketing to ? A roll of wire is used across many, many industries. Perhaps Yannis only wants to let Search users know that his roll of wire is specialized for a particular industry ? How does he do that ? On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org > wrote: > Yes, but in general, I suggest using http://www.productontology.org types > for indicating the type of the object. > > As for Yannis' question: As a general direction for a new proposal, I > suggest to define the most important types of rental objects as subtypes of > http://schema.org/Product or http://schema.org/Thing, e.g. those provided > by http://purl.org/acco/ns, like > > > * acco:Accommodation > * acco:Apartment > * acco:CampingPitch > * acco:Hotel > * acco:HotelRoom > * acco:House > * acco:MeetingRoom > * acco:Resort > * acco:Suite > > If we make them subtypes of Thing, we should expand the range of > itemOffered from Product to Thing or, logically redundant and thus less > beautiful but likely more intuitive to users, to Product OR Thing. > > Martin > > > > On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Thad Guidry wrote: > > > A Thing (which is the more general Schema.org type for Product) can use > the additionalType property that specifies a URL. See > http://schema.org/Thing > > > > and URL could be the SKOS concept of a Vacation_rental like this one: > http://live.dbpedia.org/page/Category:Vacation_rental > > > > I think ? > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Καραγιαννίδης Γιάννης <giankar@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thank you for the example Martin, very useful. > > > > Question: As you describe, with GoodRelations we can describe 99% of the > vacation rental attributes. What's the 1% missing? Why do we have Schemas > for Hotels, Motels, Hostels and B&Bs then? > > > > My only concern is that through GoodRelations, we can describe almost > everything though the mark-up but with the absence of a Schema mark-up for > Vacation Rentals we aren't "grouping" the mark-up like the other > accommodation options - am I missing something here? With GoodRelations we > can describe accommodation in general but we don't specify industry > > > > Thank you! > > Yannis > > > > > > 2013/1/8 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> > > Hi Yannis: > > > > GoodRelations is a generic e-commerce schema for any industry where you > have > > > > 1. someone (a person or organisation) who > > 2. offers some rights (ownership, temporary usage, licensing, disposal, > ...) on > > 3. some object or service (a car, a house, a hotel room, 500 g of > cheese, a camcorder). > > > > I strongly suggest to make the generic elements from GoodRelations that > are already included in schema.org the basis for any industry-specific > e-commerce extension, since you want clients to rely on the same conceptual > patterns for prices, no matter of the type of object. otherwise, clients > will have to apply complicated processing rules, e.g. if the modeling of > prices for cars uses other conceptual elements than the pricing of hotel > rooms etc. > > > > Also, computing bundles (hotel + car, airfare + hotel) gets overly > complicated. > > > > > Do you think that GoodRelations is more suitable for this industry > than a dedicated schema mark-up for vacation rentals? > > Definitely. Note that while we call schema.org a schema, it is in > essence a conceptual model that provides the basic distinctions for > representing information. > > > > While it is tempting to look at schema.org as a *mark-up syntax*, the > respective mark-up patterns in microdata and RDFa are only derived from the > underlying conceptual model. > > > > For the types of property, I suggest to use a basic schema.org type and > refine them using http://www.productontology.org types + additionalType, > because otherwise schema.org will have to maintain hundreds of property > types across cultural spheres (from tipi to cottage, house boats, ....). > > > > So basically, schema.org with its GoodRelations addition is 99 % ready > to go for rental: > > > > An apartment for $ 99 per night with a minimum stay of two nights: > > > > > > <div> > > <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope> > > <!-- Textual description --> > > <div itemprop="name">Apartment with a sea-side view for $ 99 per > night</div> > > <div itemprop="description">...more text...</div> > > <!-- You rent the object --> > > <link itemprop="businessFunction" href=" > http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut" /> > > <!-- Structured price information: $ 99 / night for a minimum of two > nights --> > > Rate: <div itemprop="priceSpecification" itemscope > > itemtype="http://schema.org/UnitPriceSpecification">$ > > <span itemprop="price">99</span> > > <meta itemprop="priceCurrency" content="USD"> per > > <meta itemprop="unitCode" content="DAY"> night > > <div itemprop="eligibleQuantity" itemtype=" > http://schema.org/QuantitativeValue" itemscope> (minimum > > <meta itemprop="minValue">2</div> > > <meta itemprop="hasUnitOfMeasurement" content="DAY" /> > nights) > > </div> > > </div> > > <!-- Validity of the offer (i.e. latest absolute booking date for that > offer) --> > > <time itemprop="validThrough" > datetime="2013-12-31T23:59:59Z">Offer valid until Dec. 31, 2013</time> > > <!-- Object to which the offer refers --> > > <div itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/Product"> > > <link itemprop="additionalType" href=" > http://www.productontology.org/id/Apartment" itemscope /> > > <div itemprop="name">Great Leisure Apartment with a > sea-side to remember</div> > > <div itemprop="description">...more text...</div> > > <!-- accomodation features may be added here once my ProductFeature > proposal is approved ;-) --> > > </div> > > </div> > > > > This is a quick sketch, of course, so please forgive minor bugs in the > example. > > > > Martin > > > > On Jan 8, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Καραγιαννίδης Γιάννης wrote: > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > We could make use of GoodRelations but I think that it's quite generic > and not quite relevant with the vacation rental industry. My incentives to > create a separate schema mark-up are mainly the property types (cottage, > villa, farmhouse etc) and the amenities that differ many times from hotels. > > > > > > Do you think that GoodRelations is more suitable for this industry > than a dedicated schema mark-up for vacation rentals? > > > > > > Thank you! > > > Yannis > > > > > > > > > 2013/1/7 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> > > > Hi, > > > Thanks for your proposal. I would suggest to incorporate the existing > GoodRelations extensions for accommodations from > > > > > > http://purl.org/acco/ns > > > > > > into schema.org, since it should provide a generic pattern for all > kinds of accommodations and accommodation features. > > > > > > I can work on that if there is consensus about this. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Καραγιαννίδης Γιάννης wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm starting this discussion with regards to the creation of a new > Schema.org mark-up concerning the Vacation Rental industry. > > > > > > > > The description of the proposal can be found here: > http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/VacationRentals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, the proposal has been added to the proposal page: > http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking forward to receive some feedback from you before > proceeding to the next level of the proposal - some examples with HTML5 code > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your time! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Giannis Karagiannidis > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Thad > > http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > -- -Thad http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 15:45:15 UTC