W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2014

Re: makesOffer should accept Service

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:57:48 +0100
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Message-Id: <F139C92B-B937-4AA9-BB96-593386AE1D93@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Hi all:
Very brief, since I have no time for a fully-fledged reply:

1. Don't break the basic pattern of

Agents->Offer->Something(Product or Service).

The offer and the object to which it refers are two distinct entities. This is a basic GoodRelations and thus schema.org pattern.

2. As for modeling services, schema:Product fits; it can be constrained by combining it with www.productontology.org types or other schema.org types without problems (in general; some Google infrastructure does not yet fully support multi-typed entities).

3. The basic pattern in GoodRelations is explained in this outdated example in the old GoodRelations cookbook:

   http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsService

The new cookbook is under development at

   http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook

On Jan 2, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Rob, don't worry about having missed it. The full list of schema.org properties is becoming pretty impenetrable, and things are rarely where you expect to find them, nor do they mean what you think they might mean. In particular, it can be hard to follow the trail of class membership for all of the multiple class relationships. (Those don't show in the main hierarchical list.)
> 
> I do think it would be good to take a look at Service and see how it can be improved. I'd like to be able to use it for some of the services of libraries -- libraries in my area have times when you can get help with filing taxes, or even consult lawyers, not to mention the usual reference services and services to shut-ins, etc. It would be great to be able to make these more visible.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 1/1/14, 6:54 PM, Robert Kost wrote:
>> <embarrassedGrunt> Thanks for correcting me, Karen; I guess I need to do
>> a better job of staying up to date </embarrassedGrunt>
>> 
>> Properties are a little odd, but at least there’s something there.
>>  Thanks again.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> On Jan 1, 2014, at 9:33 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Rob,
>>> 
>>> http://schema.org/Servicedoes exist, although it is oddly limited to
>>> "services provided by organizations." It may need some modification.
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>> On 1/1/14, 6:06 PM, Robert Kost wrote:
>>>> I will second the importance of establishing a new type: Service.  We
>>>> have run into this need in many cases — often where there is a hotel
>>>> providing guest services of various kinds.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that the semantics of Services are substantially different
>>>> than those of Product.   Services often have rates rather than unit
>>>> prices (e.g., lawyers’ hourly rates), criteria for fulfillment and
>>>> completion, are typically time-bound (per month, per year, etc.) and
>>>> have terms and conditions substantially different than products.  When
>>>> one considers the range of LocalBusinesses encompassed by Schema, many
>>>> (if not most) are rendering services rather than selling products.
>>>> Service is literally an intangible, and should probably be located as
>>>> a subclass of Intangible.   It also forms part of some proposed
>>>> extensions for LodgingBusiness
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals#LodgingExtensions>.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think?  How might we press this idea forward?
>>>> 
>>>> Rob
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 1, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Tyler Shuster
>>>> <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com <mailto:tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense. According to the
>>>>> whatwg spec,"The item types of an item
>>>>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#concept-item>
>>>>> are
>>>>> the tokens obtained by splitting the element's |itemtype| attribute's
>>>>> value on spaces
>>>>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#split-a-string-on-spaces>.
>>>>> If the |itemtype
>>>>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#attr-itemtype>|
>>>>> attribute
>>>>> is missing or parsing it in this way finds no tokens, the item
>>>>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#concept-item>
>>>>> is
>>>>> said to have no item types
>>>>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#item-types>."
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there anything keeping me from changing your fourth line to: <div
>>>>> itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product
>>>>> http://schema.org/Service">? While I understand that "Product" can
>>>>> also refer to a service, I don't find it as semantic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net
>>>>> <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>
>>>>> <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tyler Shuster
>>>>>   <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com><mailto:tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>>
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>   > I'm just starting out here, but it seems to me that "makesOffer"
>>>>>   should also
>>>>>   > accept Thing/Intangible/Service. Specifically, I work for a
>>>>>   computer repair
>>>>>   > company and I want to be able to say that we provide a service,
>>>>>   not a
>>>>>   > product. My markup under "schema.org/LocalBusiness
>>>>> <http://schema.org/LocalBusiness>
>>>>>   <http://schema.org/LocalBusiness>" is `
>>>>>   > itemprop="makesOffer" itemscope
>>>>>   itemtype="http://schema.org/Service/"`.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Hi Tyler:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://schema.org/makesOfferactually takes an Offer. Offer has an
>>>>>   itemOffered property, which in turn points at a Product. The
>>>>>   definition ofhttp://schema.org/Productis that it includes commodity
>>>>>   services; that is, your service _is_ the product.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Your markup should end up looking like:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization">
>>>>>   <h1 itemprop="name">Computer Repair Inc</h1>
>>>>>   <div itemprop="makesOffer" itemscope
>>>>>   itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer">
>>>>>   <div itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope
>>>>>   itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>>>>>   <h2 itemprop="name">Computer repair</h2>
>>>>>   </div>
>>>>>   <div itemprop="price">$100 / hour</div>
>>>>>   </div>
>>>>>   </div>
>>>>> 
>>>>>   (You would flesh it out further, of course).
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Name aside, is there anything about "Service" vs "Product" that you
>>>>>   feel you need to describe your offering that the current Offer /
>>>>>   Product approach does not cover?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>http://kcoyle.net
>>> <http://kcoyle.net/>
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 07:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:20 UTC