Re: Buyer / Seller / Provider Re-Design

I definitely favor Proposal Beta.  It relies less on deprecation of
existing properties and - more importantly IMO - less on class-specific
properties.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>