Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product? - two types approach not valid

Indeed Martin.  The results of the additionalType test, and test with the
relative second URI were anticipated; the results of the tests with two,
full, space-separated URIs for the itemtype value were not.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> wrote:

> Hi Bradley
> (& Google Structured Data Testing Team ;-) !)
>
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Aaron Bradley wrote:
>
> > This is exactly what my microdata testing revealed as well, for all of
> the solutions discussed.
> >
> > If an additional type is declared using <link itemprop="additionalType">
> the additional type property is recognized, but any properties associated
> exclusively with the additional type are reported as an error ("Error: Page
> contains property "[X]" which is not part of the schema."):
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both.php
> >
>
> I think this is correct behavior in Microdata. You could try full URIs for
> the properties of the secondary type (instead of just the local part);
> then, the tool may not complain. Whether Google will understand them is
> another issue, though.
>
> > If an additional type is listed as an additional URL in the itemtype
> declaration, the additional type is not recognized, and properties
> exclusive to it are listed as an error:
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-2.php
>
> This is a bug in the Google validator.
>
> >
> > This is the case whether or not full URLs are used for both types used
> as the itemtype value (above), or if only the item type name is used for
> second type:
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-4.php
> >
> From the top of my head, only full URIs for types are allowed with
> itemtype, so multiple types must use multiple full URIs.
>
> > The NU Validator complains about the white space being used, but if this
> is replaced with "%20" it borks both types for the Structured Data Testing
> Tool:
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-3a-p20.php
> >
> I would say that this is a bug too.
>
> > As Egon notes, the SDTT recognizes only the first item type.  If the
> order is reversed, it's the other item-specific property that is listed as
> an error:
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-3.php
> >
> This is a bug in the tool.
>
> Martin
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > The "two types approach" isn't valid - Rich Snippet Testing Tool doesn't
> detect the second type and means, the property from the second type isn't
> part of the schema.
> >
> > Here is an example, as i understand the "two types approach" relating to
> my issue:
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e84e6adc79a951051ef6f09c3f62
> >
> > The way with additionalType gives the same validation problem out: the
> type, setted with additionalType, isn't detected by Testing Tool, the
> property of the second type isn't part of the schema...
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e84e9dd5fcb63ed38bef8ac3d69b
> >
> > greets
> > egon
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> schrieb am Di, 8.10.2013:
> >
> >  Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
> >  An: chilly_bang@yahoo.de
> >  CC: "Dan Scott" <dan@coffeecode.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org,
> aaranged@gmail.com
> >  Datum: Dienstag, 8. Oktober, 2013 14:23 Uhr
> >
> >  Hi Chilly,
> >  it is not a bug, but a feature - schema.org follows the idea
> >  that if you need multiple types (not exactly, but roughly
> >  what you mean with inheritance), you shall represent that at
> >  the *instance* level, not in the *schema*.
> >
> >  The choice is very pragmatic and effective: If you have
> >  certain types in a vocabulary that are not disjoint, you
> >  would otherwise have to materialize all (or at least a lot
> >  of reasonable) combinations. That would blow up the
> >  vocabulary significantly. Plus, many of the types we are
> >  discussing here represent *roles*, not rigid, essential
> >  types. So a book that is described as a product is simply
> >  the intersection of Book and Product. A book that is
> >  described in a non-commercial context is just a book.
> >
> >  Since the semantics of Product is essentially that of a
> >  Thing used as the object in an offer, a large share of
> >  schema.org types would have to appear as specializations of
> >  Product.
> >
> >  Multiple typing at instance level is NOT a workaround. It is
> >  a flexible modeling paradigm, rooted in the notion of
> >  facets.
> >
> >  Martin
> >
> >  On Oct 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Chilly Bang wrote:
> >
> >  > Hello!
> >  >
> >  > I read all your answers  - many thanks for
> >  clarifying this issue. As i see there are mainly two
> >  approachs to get thing done: "two types approach" and using
> >  of additionalType.
> >  >
> >  > It is very helpful to have such workarounds, but they
> >  are only workarounds, not a "right" solution. This issue
> >  seems to be solvable with just simple change of type passage
> >  structure/inheriting, namely: one things must be maked
> >  possible, CreatieWork type must can inherit Product type. I
> >  mean such inheritance is a simple thing, which is even
> >  partly present, on other place: CreativeWork can inherit
> >  Offer, but why not Product? Making it possible would make
> >  such workarounds like "two types approach" redundant - they
> >  are indeed redundant cause of impossibility of inheritance,
> >  which is possible on another, near place.
> >  >
> >  > Schema.org has pretty clear structure, maintaining of
> >  it provides Schema.org to more users and makes the
> >  implementing more easy, selfexplaining and issueless. But if
> >  one thing is possible on one place, on another similar place
> >  is this not possible and needs workarounds so the whole
> >  clear structure of Schema is confused. It is just my
> >  feeling.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > --------------------------------------------
> >  > Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
> >  schrieb am Mo, 7.10.2013:
> >  >
> >  > Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
> >  > An: "Chilly Bang" <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
> >  > CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
> >  > Datum: Montag, 7. Oktober, 2013 22:37 Uhr
> >  >
> >  > 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".
> 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", 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
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >  --------------------------------------------------------
> >  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/
>
>
>
>