Re: Proposal: make more friendly for non-commercial usage

Thanks Martin!

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:17:47PM +0200, Martin Hepp wrote:
> From the perspective of GoodRelations, the proposal is fine, since GR is built around this broader notion of offers anyway.
> I have only one comment:
> For the "seller" property, I am inclined to keep that because the more generic, new "offerer" property may be too abstract for broad audiences.
> But I am not totally against that either.

I certainly understand your concern; I struggled a bit with "offerer"
myself, but struggled to come up with a good alternative that would work
for both non-commercial and commercial offers. The best that I could
come up with, "provider" is already in use in the context of
CreativeWork, although it could potentially be broadened as well.
> Note that there also is the demand side from GoodRelations represented in
> but that should work in your scenarios as it stands.

Good point, and I agree, it does not make any specific assertions about
money changing hands, so it works well for our scenarios :)

Via Thad's comment in another thread about the definition of
( I
realized that we should broaden Product's definition as well. The
current definition is:

A product is anything that is made available for saleā€”for example, a
pair of shoes, a concert ticket, or a car. Commodity services, like
haircuts, can also be represented using this type.

I therefore propose the following definition to reduce the commercial
aspect of Product, while strengthening the role of "service", and
clarifying by example that the goods or services received may be either
physical or intangible.

Any offered product or service--for example: a pair of shoes; a concert
ticket; a rental car; a haircut; or an episode of a TV show streamed

I'll add the updated definition of Product to the "broaden Offer usage"
proposal at if
there's some positive response here...

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 19:20:57 UTC