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

To get back to Chaals's original message, I have seen cases where authors
have used the "vendor" or "merchant" property on an Offer when the author
really meant "seller". It would be nice to deprecate "vendor" and
"merchant" in favor of "seller" across the board.

The sticking point seems to be what to do about "provider". We would like
to be able to be able to distinguish the operator of the flight (e.g. a
regional airline like Cape Air) from the airline providing my ticket (e.g.
American Airlines).

It sounds like "offeredBy" in place of "provider" would be too confusing.
Unfortunately, I am at a loss for another term for "provider" that is
distinct from "operator". Do people have suggestions for "provider"?

- Vicki

Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist |

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Thad Guidry <> wrote:

> I meant that the phrasing would be more clear by saying... an offering
> represents the public announcement, not necessarily binding,...etc.
>  On Jun 3, 2014 10:12 AM, "Simon Spero" <> wrote:
>> Ask your corporate counsel office about offer and acceptance, duration of
>> power of acceptance, revocation, goods vs. services, etc.
>> They should be able to explain why the semantics are so limited.
>> On Jun 3, 2014 9:48 AM, "Thad Guidry" <> wrote:
>>> Why do folks write like that ?  ... splitting the concept of "public
>>> announcement" ... no wonder search engines have such a tough time. :)
>>>> "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
>>> --
>>> -Thad
>>> +ThadGuidry <>
>>> Thad on LinkedIn <>

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 18:46:18 UTC