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

Re: makesOffer should accept Service

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:52:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbZJRPrkcmShG4=iT1b6ajd-ub1PY3GpojKh8vksm8yqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Cc: Tyler Shuster <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>, SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Thanks Dan for giving your interpretation. Now I hope you don't mind but
your response raises some new questions to me.

> 'The question "What is being offered?" is answered by the itemOffered
property'...
I understand that this is where triples come into play and that with it you
can map relationships between entities but what confuses me is, when
parsing markup like this through the different tools out there I get an
array of types back which share the same properties. Doesn't this then
imply there also is a relationship (even without the notation of
itemOffered)?

If not, then when extracting the data of that multi-type entity ('Offer
Service' - to stay with the example) don't things go wrong?
e.g. an Offer has a price property while Service doesn't. Doesn't this then
give back back wrong/invalid data?


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> My interpretation is that you would describing something that is both an
> Offer and a Service--which is subtly but significantly different from
> describing something that is an Offer to provide a Service. The question
> "What is being offered?" is answered by the itemOffered property, which
> links an Offer to a Product. In the proposed markup, there's nothing for
> that property to point at, so a consumer of the markup would likely
> consider it a dead end.
>
> Of course, given enough encounters with this markup in the wild and/or a
> large enough customer insisting on the importance of this markup, it's
> possible that schema.org consumers would make a special case when they
> parse multi-typed items that include Offer as one of the types.
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 07:52:50 UTC

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