- From: Cosmin Paun <cpaun88@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:14:14 +0200
- To: Guha <guha@google.com>
- Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I believe that also the "about" property from CreativeWork can be used to solve this problem. E.g.: <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"> <h1 itemprop="name">.....</h1> <div itemprop="description">....</div> <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"> .... </div> </div> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote: > No! > > additionalType == typeOf. > > It can be used to state that an entity is an instance of some class, > irrespective of whether that class is in schema.org or not. > > guha > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >> Martin, that wasn't a criticism. I really do mean that the lack of >> properties had led me to think of additionalType as significantly different >> to multiple schema types. Since schema uses a single namespace, it makes >> sense to me that additionalType would allow references to non-schema types, >> while one would use multiple schema types in a type declaration. >> >> So, have we concluded that additionalType refers to classes external to >> schema? >> >> kc >> >> >> On 10/7/13 11:35 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: >>> >>> The Product Types Ontology cannot provide additional properties, since >>> they cannot be directly derived from Wikipedia lemmata. >>> I am working on a very lean yet powerful way for that, stay tuned ;-) >>> >>> On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> >>>> Something else that has made it hard for me to generalize from the use >>>> of product ontology to the use of additional schema.org types is that the >>>> product ontology use provides an additional type but no additional >>>> properties. It feels kind of like an aside. The schema.org use case seems to >>>> provide different capabilities, and has a more substantial impact on the >>>> instance metadata. >>>> >>>> Admittedly, there was the quote that flew through here today saying that >>>> proper reasoners would infer from the properties that one was making a >>>> statement about additional types, but it does not seem that that assumption >>>> has been in force during most of the development of schema.org -- instead, >>>> multiple typing within schema.org has been done explicitly in the design of >>>> classes and properties rather than being relegated to instances and >>>> reasoners. >>>> >>>> kc >>>> >>>> On 10/7/13 5:20 PM, Aaron Bradley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The documentation here leaves a lot to be desired. I think, at the >>>>> very >>>>> least, an example of this in use on schema.org <http://schema.org> with >>>>> a schema.org <http://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.org <http://schema.org> about 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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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://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 <mailto: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> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Karen Coyle >>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 16:14:42 UTC