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

Re: makesOffer should accept Service

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:43:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbZds31caH2Mi=a-XwT1eVc=TnKoQnGCde_k7YV+ieeu7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Cc: Tyler Shuster <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>, SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Somebody asked me yesterday why itemtype="http://schema.org/Product
http://schema.org/Service"> has to be marked up this way just to be able to
add an offer/Offer. He proposed to mark it up like itemtype="
http://schema.org/Offer http://schema.org/Service">. Adding the Offer as a
second type of Service and thus skipping Product all together.

In all honesty I couldn't come up with a reason why this would be a wrong
notation. So I was curious, does anybody think this is valid markup and if
not, why not?


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Tyler:
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Tyler Shuster
> <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 are the tokens obtained by splitting
the
> > element's itemtype attribute's value on spaces. If the itemtype
attribute is
> > missing or parsing it in this way finds no tokens, the item is said to
have
> > no 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.
>
> That would be perfectly valid, yep.
>
> I think Martin gave the best description of the whitespace-delimited
> itemtype attribute vs. use of the additionalType property at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0114.html -
> to summarize crudely, you can mix types in the itemtype attribute if
> they all come from the same vocabulary, while additionalType lets you
> pull in types from other vocabularies.
>
> For example, you could use additionalType to reference a
> ProductOntology type for computer repair services in your markup:
> something like http://www.productontology.org/id/Computer_repair
>
> I suppose you could use itemtype="Product Service" _and_
> additionalType="http://www.productontology.org/id/Computer_repair" if
> you wanted to use be as specific as possible within schema.org vocab
> for those processors that might be limited to only understanding
> schema.org, for whatever reason, while adding precision for those
> processors that also understand ProductOntology or other
> vocabularies...
>
> Dan
>
Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 16:43:30 UTC

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