- From: Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:07:58 +0100 (BST)
- To: Cosmin Paun <cpaun88@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi ! I realized even, that my example, after a little change (i changed a space between the two itemtypes to %20, it looks now so itemtype="http://schema.org/Product%20http://schema.org/Book"), is fully validated by Google's Rich Snippet Testing Tool. I mean, the property of the second itemtype is identified without an alert about not part of the schema. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e8c7b4003b0586b28504e557c579 Unfortunately i haven't tested this syntax (with %20 instead of space between types) by my earlier trials, so i can't insist, whether it was so too. Does it mean now, that the "two types approach" suggested from Martin is now fully valid for using? greets egon -------------------------------------------- Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> schrieb am Di, 15.10.2013: Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product? An: "Cosmin Paun" <cpaun88@gmail.com> CC: "Guha" <guha@google.com>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "W3C Vocabularies" <public-vocabs@w3.org> Datum: Dienstag, 15. Oktober, 2013 11:20 Uhr No. That is a usage that clients will very likely not understand. On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Cosmin Paun wrote: > 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 >>> >> > -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tuesday, 15 October 2013 15:08:27 UTC