Re: Proposal: add a sale (and discount) property to Offer

Personally, I am a fan of this pattern in general, that is using specific
subclasses over boolean properties to indicate an additional characteristic
of the thing. There are places where it becomes problematic (e.g.
conflicting types), but I believe it scales better (e.g. when it is
discovered that a DiscountOffer have more specific discount-related
properties, such as discount amount, etc.).

Cheers,
Niklas


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Kévin Dunglas <dunglas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another (better?) solution is to create new types extending Offer with no
> new property like:
>
>    - Thing > Intangible > Offer > DiscountOffer
>    - Thing > Intangible > Offer > SaleOffer
>
> Martin, what do you think of this proposal?
>
>
> 2014-01-26 11:10 GMT+01:00 Kévin Dunglas <dunglas@gmail.com>:
>
> Some countries have specials regulations for sales. E.g. in France, a
>> sale must be explicitly differentiated of regular discounts and the
>> price of a sale must be lesser than the lower price in the past month.
>>
>> To let softwares easily determine if an offer is a sale or not, I
>> propose to add the following property to http://schema.org/Offer:
>>
>> Property | Expected type | Description
>> sale       | Boolean           | This offer is a sale
>>
>> For clarity (and to easily distinguish sales from discounts) I also
>> propose to add the following property:
>>
>> Property       | Expected type  | Description
>> discount       | Boolean           | This offer is a discount
>> --
>> Kévin Dunglas
>>
>> http://dunglas.fr
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kévin Dunglas
>
> http://dunglas.fr
>