- From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:17:44 -0400
- To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOr1obGQLrBUy_az6OBfPCqz8v2OM7Gm2beq6c4d9DBRqFaOrw@mail.gmail.com>
In this context, "BuyAction > seller" means the "seller" property on the BuyAction type. - Vicki Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't understand the ">" shorthand in the Proposal Alpha listings. E.g.: > > 6. Deprecate vendor in favor of BuyAction > seller > > What does "in favor of BuyAction > seller" mean - i.e what does the ">" > represent in this construction? > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com > > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> Following up on a thread which went stale back in June, Vicki and Dan @ >> Google + myself formalized the prior public discussions into a pair of >> alternative vocabulary re-designs. We then generated a (hopefully) >> canonical set of use cases to help validate and map those alternatives. We >> would like to re-start the stale discussion using this more formal proposal >> in the hopes that we can drive consensus ASAP. >> >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/File:ProviderSellerVocabularyRe-DesignProposal.pdf >> >> >> >> Please read through the PDF and … >> >> - provide feedback on the proposed model of exchanges >> >> - provide feedback on the two alternative proposals, ideally favoring one >> more than the other (we can’t decide ourselves) >> >> - review the canonical examples we have generated and share any that we >> are missing – especially if neither alternative vocab addresses them >> >> >> >> We hope to move forward with one of these solutions ASAP and look forward >> to your input! >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> *Jason Johnson* >> >> Microsoft >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 19:18:11 UTC