Re: offeredBy to supersede vendor, merchant, provider, seller, …?

Ah - that distinguishes it from an offer, which is not binding until
accepted, and can be revoked (with a few restrictions, esp. in civil law
jurisdictions).

I have no idea what the legal effect would be if a merchant created
offerings not intended to be offers in order to draw traffic for other
purposes.

It is not unusual to create an offer to buy, though RFPs or other forms of
bid solicitation are more usual, which presumably is what  Demand models.

Contract ontology is hard. Let's not go shopping - Barbie 3.0 :)
 On Jun 3, 2014 4:05 AM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Simon:
> gr:Offering is not limited to binding or commercial offers. The
> non-binding character has been in the textual definition since 2008:
>
> "An offering represents the public, not necessarily binding, not
> necessarily exclusive, announcement by a gr:BusinessEntity to provide (or
> seek) a certain gr:BusinessFunction for a certain gr:ProductOrService to a
> specified target audience. An offering is specified by the type of product
> or service or bundle it refers to, what business function is being offered
> (sales, rental, ...), and a set of commercial properties."
>
> Historically, gr:Offering could represent the supply and the demand side;
> this explains the "or seek" part. We fixed that when integrating GR into
> schema.org, creating http://schema.org/Demand, which will be gr:Demand in
> the next GR service update.
>
>
>
> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Martin Hepp
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> On 30 May 2014, at 19:14, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 2014 6:45 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks. I had a brief exchange with Martin Hepp yesterday - he has
> some concerns that we maintain some of the conceptual distinctions
> underlying Good Relations, will go into more detail next week.
> >
> > >The basic concern was to maintain the notion that "an offer is the
> promise to transfer some rights on >something", and that if we use the word
> "offer", that's what it should continue to mean.
> > That's a slightly loose definition of offer (at least, in the GR
> context);  in the sense used in GR  it appears to be  "an offer is a
> display of willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms, made in
> a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an acceptance,
> having been sought, will result in a binding contract" (Black's Law
> Dictionary).
> >
> > 'vendor' and 'seller' are synonyms.
> >
> > merchant has legal connotations (a merchant may be held to a higher
> standard of expertise than a nonmerchant) , and does not apply to one
> providing services.
> >
> > Legally binding promises can be made to transfer temporary
> possession/right of occupancy, etc (without changing ownership);
> renting/leasing. However, promises to make gifts are generally not binding,
> and do not fit neatly into the offer/acceptance paradigm.
> >
> > Vocabulary is cheap.   Lawyers, less so.
> >
> >
>
>