- From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:19:29 -0400
- To: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Cc: David Deering <david@touchpointdigital.net>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0200, Jarno van Driel wrote: > Good question, I have been struggling with this as well. > > I use schema.org/ProfessionalService for generic service-businesses and > than mark up the pages, about the services the company delivers, with > schema.org/Product. Now I don't want to argue whether it's the ultimate > method of accomplishing something like this, it's simply the way I do it > because I'm not aware of any another method that does the job better. > Probable there should be a way to mark up services as their own Thing > instead of abusing schema.org/Product for this but for now there's isn't a > method/vocabulary which allows us to do so that I'm aware of. Hi Jarno: Given that the description of http://schema.org/Product includes "Commodity services, like haircuts, can also be represented using this type.", it seems that using Product to represent a service is a pretty reasonable approach. I suppose Product has a number of properties that would generally not be applicable to services, but the ProfessionalService->makesOffer->Offer->itemOffered->Product set of relationships makes sense (to me, at least). (Okay, "itemOffered" is a more specific property name than one might have liked, but at this point it is probably entrenched in the same way that the "seller" property is). In any case: do you have any specific, actionable concerns that we can discuss about using Product for services? Missing properties or the like? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 17:20:00 UTC