- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:08:25 -0800
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
There is quite a bit of semantic ambiguity between schema:product, service, and offer. Product seems to match Martin's GoodRelations definition of "product or service", but I could also think of product and service as "product offered" "service offered", thus making them not fully distinct from Offer, and possibly subtypes of offer. The only reason I could see for a separation between product and service would be if they have some distinct properties that cannot be shared. kc Thing > Product A product is anything that is made available for sale—for example, a pair of shoes, a concert ticket, or a car. Commodity services, like haircuts, can also be represented using this type. Thing > Intangible > Service A service provided by an organization, e.g. delivery service, print services, etc. Thing > Intangible > Offer An offer to sell an item—for example, an offer to sell a product, the DVD of a movie, or tickets to an event. On 1/7/14, 10:21 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: > The properties of http://schema.org/Product are naturally not sufficient for all possible details of every possible object or activity that can be offered. There are two solutions for that: > > 1. Propose additional properties for http://schema.org/Service. > 2. Wait for the generic property-value proposal that I am working on; more to follow on http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PropertyValuePairs. > > As a bit of background: In GoodRelations, there is one joint class for products and services, because many data sources (e.g. Web shops) are not able to signal whether an item is a product or a service (e.g. because the backend-database does not store this distinction). Thus, we need a common abstraction. When integrating GoodRelations into schema.org, we merged that into http://schema.org/Product, since this covers the majority of the use-cases. > > Martin > > On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Robert Kost wrote: > >> Hi Martin — >> >> with regard to … >>> >>> 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). >>> >> >> … I don’t understand. How would one use Product to model, say: the services of a product liability attorney who works on contingency: the SLA of an internet service provider offering to provide specific bandwidth rates, availabilities, etc. over a specific period of time; a real estate broker specializing in distressed properties; or a hospital that specializes in orthopedic surgeries and that wants to cite certain procedures or success rates? None of the Product properties seem to support these notions of performance, conditionality, rate, quality, technique, delivery time and method, etc. And, conversely, many of the Product properties do not pertain. It is possible, I suppose, to stuff of all of the salient differentiators into “description,” but the utility of Schema is undermined. In any event, Product seems to be a tortured use of the word to describe what is being offered. >> >> best, >> >> Rob > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 19:08:55 UTC