W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Redefine and reuse?

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:21:34 +0200
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <68F29ACD-085C-42C1-8130-8CEC40BC0F30@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Hi Karen:
I can only speak for the underlying GoodRelations model, and there a broadening of meaning of key concepts is on my agenda, since "Offering" in GR (Offer in schema) means basically just the offer to transfer an arbitrary bundle of rights on an arbitrary tangible or intangible object for an arbitrary compensation (money, no compensation, good karma, ...).

The current definitions do not properly reflect this broader meaning, but as said, I plan to update the spec accordingly.

In general, I think it will be much better for schema.org to keep at a minimum the number of conceptual elements, and consolidating them by broadening definitions is a good thing, IMHO. That is for types. 

For properties, I think that in the long run, schema.org should rather follow a strict frame-based approach, where the definition of the property takes place at the level of types. Otherwise we will run out of catchy names for properties. But this is another discussion.


n Jul 23, 2013, at 12:11 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Hello. The schemaBibEx group is working to fill in some missing properties needed for bibliographic data, as well as some that are needed for library-specific data. Libraries have long existed in a data silo that has kept us apart from other information communities, so we are quite sensitive about the importance of reusing elements that have a broader context.
> To this end, we have been looking at properties like "Offer" and "sku" to handle what libraries have to offer: lending of materials, online access, placing of requests (holds). What we are finding, though, is that in many cases the definitions of the schema.org terms are rather narrow. "Offer" is defined as:
> "An offer to sell an item—for example, an offer to sell a product, the DVD of a movie, or tickets to an event."
> This seems to eliminate offers to lend, to lease, or to barter, or to provide other services.
> Our question to this group is: Is the community open to proposals regarding changes to definitions for terms already in schema.org? Do we anticipate that such changes would/would not be disruptive? Or is it preferred that we create new terms with new definitions?
> Thanks,
> kc
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

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 Monday, 22 July 2013 22:22:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:00 UTC