- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:24:19 +0200
- To: Francois-Paul Servant <francoispaulservant@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <CCA72666-19AD-4426-A8D3-471B5F283CE5@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Hi Francois, > I am curious to know how you would do that. VSO recommends to make statements such as: > foo:myCar vso:fuelType dbpedia:Diesel. > > How can you adapt that to handle configurations? For configurations, you have to be able to state, for instance, that the fuelType may be diesel or gasoline, but not electric. I don't see how you can do that using the vso:fuelType property you simply define three gr:ProductOrServiceModel instances: foo:BaseConfig a vso:Automobile, gr:ProductOrServiceModel. foo:DieselConfig a vso:Automobile, gr:ProductOrServiceModel ; vso:fuelType <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Diesel>. foo:GasolineConfig a vso:Automobile, gr:ProductOrServiceModel ; vso:fuelType <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gasoline>. The you statet that foo:DieselConfig and foo:GasolineConfig are gr:isVariantOf foo:BaseConfig. foo:BaseConfig gr:isVariantOf foo:BaseConfig . foo:DieselConfig gr:isVariantOf foo:BaseConfig . By virtue of that, a data consumer knows that there - there is a base model without fuel type information and - there are two variants (specializations) thereof, one with Gasoline, one with Diesel as a fuel type. It does not explicitly tell you that there CANNOT be a variant with electric fuel, but since negation is a complex topic at Web scale, this is not really a shortcoming, as far as I can see. And actually, you can model that in schema.org already as of now, if you use vso:Automobile or pto:Automobile with the additionalType property: <div id="base_config" itemprop="isVariantOf" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ProductModel" itemid="#BaseConfig"> <link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://purl.org/vso/ns#Automobile" /> <span itemprop="name">The ACME Base Car </span> </div> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ProductModel" itemid="#DieselConfig" itemref="base_config"> <span itemprop="name">The ACME Car with Diesel Engine </span> <link itemprop="http://purl.org/vso/ns#fuelType" href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Diesel" /> </div> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ProductModel" itemid="#GasolineConfig" itemref="base_config"> <span itemprop="name">The ACME Car with Gasoline Engine </span> <link itemprop="http://purl.org/vso/ns#fuelType" href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gasoline" /> </div> The Google Structured Data Testing Tool will warn that it does not know the property <http://purl.org/vso/ns#fuelType>, Error: Page contains property "http://purl.org/vso/ns#fueltype" which is not part of the schema. but that is just cosmetics, since the tool could and should be configured to accept external properties as long as they use a full URI (or at least give a warning instead of an error). So with adding VSO to schema.org, you could model at least basic variant information with schema.org. And it would be a minor task to implement that. This does not reduce the potential of your more ambitious work in defining a full ontology for car specifications, but it would already get us far quickly, and that with a pattern that is the same for many vertical industries. By the way: One small thing that I do not like about your proposal is that you say that a configuration is both a gr:MakeAndModel and a gr:Offering. Those are two distinct entities, even if they often appear as a pair. Martin On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Francois-Paul Servant wrote: > Hi Martin, and all > > Le 26 juil. 2013 à 10:04, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> a écrit : > >> Hi all, >> for the automotive segment, I strongly recommend integrating >> >> http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/vso/ns >> >> into schema.org. >> >> It is a GoodRelations extension for all kinds of vehicles and will thus nicely fit to the already existing GoodRelations elements in schema.org. >> >> Exposing configuration information can basically be done in two ways: >> >> 1. Exposing the *rules* for compatibility of components; that is what Volkswagen does with their COO ontology, >> >> http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/vocabularies/coo/ns.html >> >> 2. Exposing (a subset of) actually buildable cars or partly configured cars; this is what can be done with basic schema.org/GoodRelations/VSO elements, plus maybe the conceptual modeling work done at Renault. >> >> For Web markup, I recommend the second route, but it will not require more than just translating the VSO ontology into a schema.org extension proposal, and I will tackle that as soon as my resources permit. > > I am curious to know how you would do that. VSO recommends to make statements such as: > foo:myCar vso:fuelType dbpedia:Diesel. > > How can you adapt that to handle configurations? For configurations, you have to be able to state, for instance, that the fuelType may be diesel or gasoline, but not electric. I don't see how you can do that using the vso:fuelType property > > Best, > > fps > -------------------------------------------------------- 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, 29 July 2013 08:24:40 UTC