- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:36:45 -0500
- To: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaPWHJDtyFOE93rdF3_0pNTzcPTms-L=hayoJq=ARU-iEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Postal Addressing is not difficult, you and I do it every day when we write on an envelope. Routing of mail and directions, simply rely on lines just like your envelope: Address Line 1 Address Line 2 Address Line 3 etc. City/Town/Region/State/Province/Country 3 lines typical for USA addresses. Up to 8 lines typical (as well as somewhat optional now) for Chinese Prefecture level cities. But it's all just line structure above the City/Town level and handled simply with Text strings. If your own internal data needs dictate that you have structured data down to House Numbers, than that is your choice, but Google, Yahoo, Bing, Amazon, and your local mailman reading an envelope will still just see Address Lines below a City/Town level and will not care much about the building name, building number, unit, street name, lot, apt, Mail routing will still happen and your GPS after entry will still pull up the address.... but your own data analysis needs of how many apartment numbers in the world begin with 13 or how many street addresses in the world contain a building name with the term "Court" might not. (but that's a different use case then Schema.org) On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>wrote: > International postal addressing is *very* hard -- do a web search for "ISO > 19160" and you'll see that ISO has been working the issue for years. I've > been working in geographic standards for a decade and I've never seen this > problem solved elegantly on an international level. > > There's no easy answer because different countries/cultures have different > conceptual ideas around addressing, so there's no way to fit them all into > a single information model without making it pretty flexible (such as using > vCard). > > ----- > Raj Singh > rsingh@opengeospatial.org > The OGC: Making location count. > http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh > > > > > On Oct 24, at 11:51 AM, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > > Thanks Marc? > > > > I think that depends a lot on on the country. For example, my address at > work is? > > > > Zone 1.08 (unit) > > BBC Scotland (company name _and_ building name) > > 40 (building number) Pacific Drive (street) > > Glasgow (locality) > > G51 1DA (postal code) > > > > My home address, on the other hand, has the form [details changed, of > course]: > > > > Flat 23 (unit) > > Nonexistant Court (building name) > > 123 (building number) Nowhere Street (street) > > Greenock (locality) > > Ayrshire (region) > > PA15 3BB (postal code) > > > > So with both of these examples, it?s not obvious how you would have > ?houseNumber?, ?boxNumber? and ?streetAddress? ? and it gets even *more* > complicated when you have a Post Office Box number (which may be used > either instead of or as well as a street address and subordinate > properties). > > > > Order is also very important in strange ways ? e.g., if your schema > means rearranging the address at all and you carry that through your > system, then things like credit card transactions will fail because they > often depend upon the numbers appearing in a certain order. > > > > Postal addressing is Hard? > > > > M. > > > > On 2013-Oct-24, at 16:34, Marc Twagirumukiza < > marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> 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://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/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> 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://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/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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] > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > 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. > > ----------------------------- > > From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> > > Subject: Re: Extending schema with 2 predicates "schema:houseNumber" and > "schema:Box" > > Date: October 24, 2013 11:51:01 AM EDT > > To: Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> > > Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org> > > > > > > Thanks Marc… > > > > I think that depends a lot on on the country. For example, my address at > work is… > > > > Zone 1.08 (unit) > > BBC Scotland (company name _and_ building name) > > 40 (building number) Pacific Drive (street) > > Glasgow (locality) > > G51 1DA (postal code) > > > > My home address, on the other hand, has the form [details changed, of > course]: > > > > Flat 23 (unit) > > Nonexistant Court (building name) > > 123 (building number) Nowhere Street (street) > > Greenock (locality) > > Ayrshire (region) > > PA15 3BB (postal code) > > > > So with both of these examples, it’s not obvious how you would have > ‘houseNumber’, ‘boxNumber’ and ‘streetAddress’ — and it gets even *more* > complicated when you have a Post Office Box number (which may be used > either instead of or as well as a street address and subordinate > properties). > > > > Order is also very important in strange ways — e.g., if your schema > means rearranging the address at all and you carry that through your > system, then things like credit card transactions will fail because they > often depend upon the numbers appearing in a certain order. > > > > Postal addressing is Hard™ > > > > M. > > > > On 2013-Oct-24, at 16:34, Marc Twagirumukiza < > marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> 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://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/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> 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://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/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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] > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- -Thad Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 20:37:17 UTC