- From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:51:57 -0400
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:17:46AM +0200, Martin Hepp wrote: > No objections from the GoodRelations side ;-) > Note that in GoodRelations, the equivalent class is named ProductOrService: > > http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProductOrService I know it well; I tried to stick closely to GoodRelations while drafting this proposal :) > > I would not recommend to create a distinct class "Service", because many sites cannot properly distinguish products from (commodity) services, so they cannot make the distinction in the markup. > > For instance, many shop applications mix products and associated services in their database and cannot reliably keep them apart. This is why GoodRelations has a common superclass as the default. This makes perfect sense to me. Thanks again Martin! Dan
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 03:52:28 UTC