Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?

The documentation here leaves a lot to be desired.  I think, at the very
least, an example of this in use on schema.org with a schema.org URL would
be useful.  As far as I know ProductModel [1] is the only type that uses
additionalType in example code, and this very much in keeping with what the
property's description describes as the "typical"  use for the property in
"adding more specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax."

Is <link> required to employ additionalType?  Once an additionalType is
declared, can properties be associated with it *and* the initially-declared
item?  There's no guidance on this or any other information on
schema.orgabout implementing additionalType.

Note that additionalType proposal [2] included "Changes to
http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html" - namely the insertion of a section
"Handling of Multiple Types."  That section obviously never made its way to
the Data Model page.

[1] http://schema.org/ProductModel
[2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal



On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:

> This is what  http://schema.org/additionalType is for.
>
> All of an object's types have the same standing.
>
> guha
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this what http://schema.org/additionalType is for?
>>
>> --
>> Wes Turner
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan's solution and Martin's link are excellent ones.  Just a quick FYI a
>>> previous discussion and a proposal related to it provide some further
>>> information on this type of conundrum in schema.org:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Jan/0182.html
>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema
>>>
>>> A fragment from the former reference:
>>>
>>> > Assuming they take OWL seriously, they would infer new types for the
>>> > entity if properties were mixed and matched. If example, if the claimed
>>> > type is schema:Book and somebody used the schema:sku property, they
>>> > could infer it is also a schema:Product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:16:01PM +0100, Chilly Bang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm busy at the moment with marking up with microdata of an online
>>>>> bookstore and realized the following dilemma:
>>>>> if a page is about describing and selling of a CreativeWork/Book, so i
>>>>> come to selling properties with itemprop="offers" itemscope="" itemtype="
>>>>> http://schema.org/**Offer <http://schema.org/Offer>". But on this way
>>>>> i can't describe the book i sell like Product, with product's properties -
>>>>> i can't find any passage from CreativeWork to Product. There is in fact a
>>>>> passage from Offer to Product, with itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope=""
>>>>> itemtype="http://schema.org/**Product <http://schema.org/Product>",
>>>>> but repeating isn't a good way, beside of this it isn't easy to get such
>>>>> passage into html, even with itemref.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see no possibility to go the way CreativeWork->Product->Offer (or
>>>>> CreativeWork->Product and CreativeWork->Offer), but only
>>>>> CreativeWork->Offer, or Product->Offer. CreativeWork can't be a Product or
>>>>> am i wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> Imho CreativeWork surely can own product's properties so it must
>>>>> gladly have a passage from any CreativeWork property to Product.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can just use both types in the itemtype declaration, for example,
>>>> itemtype="Book Product".
>>>>
>>>> We're doing this in the #schemabibex group to express offers for a given
>>>> item. And Martin gave a wonderful example of this approach on this list
>>>> just a few days back at
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/**0206.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0206.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>