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

Re: makesOffer should accept Service

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:39:19 -0800
Message-ID: <52CC7407.7090309@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Oops, I hit send while still reading: the types are Book and Product, so 
this is similar to Jarno's example. But in any case, it is an example 
with a creative work.

kc

On 1/7/14, 1:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> This page shows a use of offer related to a Book, which is a CreativeWork.
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer
>
> It does not make use of Product.
>
> kc
>
> On 1/7/14, 1:09 PM, Jarno van Driel wrote:
>> Thank you very much for your extensive explanation Martin. Because of it
>> I'm quite some steps closer to what I would like to understand.
>>
>> Now if I understand you correctly a multiple-type item should only be
>> used if one wants to create a (composite) type but should be avoided if
>> possible due to difficulty in parsing that type of data.
>>
>> Now in the example I wrote for somebody else (which led to my original
>> question) I marked up a 'house for sale' and it looked like this:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Residence
>> http://schema.org/Product">
>>      ...[residence product data]...
>>      <div itemprop="offer" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer">...[offer data]...</div>
>> </div>
>>
>> Now if I understand the previous posts correctly than I can consider
>> this markup to be correct, right?
>>
>> The only thing I still wonder though is why isn't it possible add the
>> offer property to more types. It seems a bit complex to have to add
>> Product to something you want to put up for sell while semantically
>> being more precise. Having the possibility to add an offer property to
>> things like for example Book, Residence, Store, Movie and such would
>> make it so much intuitive IMHO. So I wonder, is there a special reason
>> why 'offer' and 'itemOffered' are bound to Product?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 1/7/14, 11:21 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>
>>         In theory, we would not need a distinct type for "Product" (nor
>>         Service); we could simply say we have an agent, and offer, and a
>>         thing. But it felt unnatural to not have a Product class in an
>>         e-commerce ontology.
>>
>>         But I disagree that the product type is the same as the offer.
>>         Being a product is a role that a thing can have, and this type
>>         adds properties that are relevant only in this context (e.g. a
>>         stock keeping unit). The offer is the promise to transfer some
>>         or all rights on the thing.
>>
>>
>>     Ah, but that isn't what I meant. I meant that in schema.org
>>     <http://schema.org> "product" is a thing being offered. Which I
>>     think would modify your scenario from:
>>        agent - object - promise - location
>>
>>     to:
>>
>>        agent - promise - object - location
>>
>>     The schema Product *definition* includes "made available" (we'll
>>     ignore "for sale") in the definition of product. So offer and
>>     product appear to be closely entwined, as a product is defined as
>>     something that is offered. To separate them, one would need to
>>     define product as "something made" with perhaps "eventually intended
>>     for sale/exchange". That would be reminiscent of the indecs "people
>>     create stuff, people make deals about stuff."
>>
>>     Product can be contrasted with CreativeWork, whose definition is
>>     less than enlightening: "The most generic kind of creative work,
>>     including books, movies, photographs, software programs, etc."
>>     CreativeWork is not by definition "made available" in the way that
>>     Product is. And of course some creative works are products, so like
>>     the separation of product and service we have fuzzy definitional
>>     boundaries. What is the difference between a film as a creative work
>>     and a film on DVD for sale?
>>
>>     I'm not suggesting that we should or even can resolve these, but I
>>     do see the problem as going beyond the product/offer issue.
>>
>>     kc
>>
>>
>>
>>         The beauty of this model is that
>>
>>         - it fits a huge range of scenarios and
>>         - with http://schema.org/Demand, we have a type that is the
>>         exact mirror of the offer and can be used to model the demand
>>         side in a structurally identical fashion.
>>
>>         For instance, if you sell the same product at different
>>         conditions in different countries, or at different times (e.g.
>>         happy hours for drinks), you simply use multiple offers for the
>>         same object.
>>
>>         Martin
>>
>>         On Jan 7, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>             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
>>                 <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 <http://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
>>                         <http://www.productontology.org> types or other
>>                         schema.org <http://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
>>                 <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>>                 phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>> <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
>>                 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
>>                 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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>> http://kcoyle.net
>>             m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>>             skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>>         ------------------------------__--------------------------
>>         martin hepp
>>         e-business & web science research group
>>         universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>
>>         e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>> <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>>         phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
>>         fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
>>         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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>>     skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 21:39:46 UTC

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