- From: Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:15:37 +0200
- To: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFB315B4EB.9716B73C-ONC1257C0E.004DF675-C1257C0E.004E55B3@agfa.com>
Hello there,
We are working on the model of PostalAddress and wi think we need 2 extra
predicates in schema:
The structure is as follows:
<http://example.org/PostalAddress/PostalAddress#this>
a schema:PostalAddress;
schema:streetAddress "Via Pietro Panzeri, No 12/7";
schema:houseNumber "253";
schema:Box "23";
schema:postalCode "20139";
schema:addressLocality "Milan";
schema:addressRegion "MI";
schema:addressCountry [a schema:Country; schema:name "Italy"].
Here we need the 2 properties to have a complet addresse of someone:
"schema:houseNumber" and "schema:Box"
Any feedback?
Kind Regards,
Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T +32 3444 8188 | M +32 499 713 300
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer:
http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
From: Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
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>
Date: 23/10/2013 13:52
Subject: Warning of "two type approach": visible rich snippets
disappear
Hi!
I have even tested the visibility of rich snippets in my page with two
types approach: if using two types, the rich snippets disappear (rating
stars, price, reviews amount). After deleting of the second type the rich
snippets are back.
--------------------------------------------
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 Thursday, 24 October 2013 14:16:30 UTC