- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:06:13 -0700
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Marc - Can you give a definition of house number and box? (Different countries do addresses differently... we'll probably need very clear definitions.) Also, box is a very common word for lots of things, so it would best get a qualifier, once we have the definition. Thanks, kc On 10/24/13 7:15 AM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote: > 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://www.agfahealthcare.com/> > http://blog.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 <http://schema.org/>> with > >>>>>> a schema.org <http://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 > <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/additionalTypeis 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/additionalTypeis 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://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 <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 <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 Thursday, 24 October 2013 15:06:44 UTC