- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:53:17 -0700
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Marc, I don't know of anything equivalent to the boxNumber in the US (and I'm still not sure I understand what it is), but I live in an area where most houses are stand-alone buildings -- perhaps someone in a big city can speak to that. However, we have something called "PO Box" which is when someone rents a postal box in a separate space (a post office or special store) that isn't part of their home. If there will be a general address type then that would also need to be covered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_box kc On 10/24/13 8:34 AM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote: > Interesting point Mo! > But maybe we will not go as far as that with apartments/units/ and > flats. By the way the HouseNumber corresponds to the apartment in most > of case (eg. 403B, 403C, etc) and the BoxNumber corresponds really to > the leaves level (the door) eg 403C/12. > So I think the two predicates may be enough for now. > When the house has no number our clients may use a structure up to the > streetName. > I guess you understand the issue of not having this complete structure > here. > > Kind Regards, > * > *Marc > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Click on link to read important disclaimer: > http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer > > > > From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> > To: Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA@AGFA > Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org> > Date: 24/10/2013 17:23 > Subject: Re: Extending schema with 2 predicates "schema:houseNumber" and > "schema:Box" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Hi Marc, > > A couple of things? > > Some houses (depending upon country) don?t have numbers at all, only names. > > Also, if you?re going to break it up into house name/number and street > address, apartments/units/flats will also need to be called out separately. > > Ordinarily, one either overloads ?street address? to contain all of the > information more specific than street name, or one must specify all of > the possible properties (accounting for all of the different address > formats in the world, more or less). > > For example, this is how Royal Mail in the UK specifies addresses: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File > > M. > > On 2013-Oct-24, at 15:15, Marc Twagirumukiza > <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development, > Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, > MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ, > 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E > > > > ----------------------------- > http://www.bbc.co.uk <http://www.bbc.co.uk/> > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and > may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless > specifically stated. > If you have received it in > error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the > information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender > immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails > sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to > this. > ----------------------------- > > > ----- Message from Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> on Thu, 24 Oct > 2013 15:22:37 +0000 ----- > *To:* > > Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> > *cc:* > > W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org> > *Subject:* > > Re: Extending schema with 2 predicates "schema:houseNumber" and "schema:Box" > > > > Hi Marc, > > A couple of things… > > Some houses (depending upon country) don’t have numbers at all, only names. > > Also, if you’re going to break it up into house name/number and street > address, apartments/units/flats will also need to be called out separately. > > Ordinarily, one either overloads ‘street address’ to contain all of the > information more specific than street name, or one must specify all of > the possible properties (accounting for all of the different address > formats in the world, more or less). > > For example, this is how Royal Mail in the UK specifies addresses: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File > > M. > > On 2013-Oct-24, at 15:15, Marc Twagirumukiza > <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development, > Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, > MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ, > 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E > > [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA] -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 15:53:45 UTC