- From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:07:14 +0200
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADK2AU0i+S+2=kOAxuNwsb9nUT_iK9PJ6Oi+q+e6NszvH5vRmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for explaining Martin, most is clear to me except when to use the Service entity by itself. Because if 'Any offered product or service' = ProductOrService then when would one choose to use just the Service type; only in non-commercial cases? 2014-06-03 19:14 GMT+02:00 <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>: > > On 03 Jun 2014, at 11:25, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > After reading the description of http://schema.org/Product I got a bit > confused. It says: > > "Any offered product or *service*. For example: a pair of shoes; a > concert ticket; *the rental of a car*; *a haircut*; or an episode of a TV > show streamed online." > > > As for rental etc. of physical products: This is straightforward, since > the bundle of rights offered by the offer is defined by the > gr/schema:BusinessFunction. When you rent a car, you just obtain temporary > usage etc. See the definitions at > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#BusinessFunction > > • gr:ConstructionInstallation > • gr:Dispose > • gr:LeaseOut > • gr:Maintain > • gr:ProvideService > • gr:Repair > • gr:Sell > • gr:Buy > > > > The 'service' mentioned made twitch a bit since I thought we have > http://schema.org/Service for this. Now I looked up ProductOrService on > the Goodrelations site ( > http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Product_or_Service) > and this page mentions 3 types of Product entities specifically but doesn't > mention Service. > > schema:Product is equivalent to gr:ProductOrService. The reason for the > naming difference is that schema:Product existed before GR was integrated. > > The subtypes of schema:Product / gr:ProductOrService are for indicating > more precisely whether you are talking of > > - a concrete individual (e.g. a car with a VIN, a computer with a serial > number, ...) > - a bag of anonymous products (a bit complicated to explain, I admit) and > - a product model, essentially a datasheet that defines properties for > actualy products. > > > > > So if it's true that Product also can mean a service, than in which case > is one supposed to use Service? > > In essence, being a product is a role that a thing can take by being the > object of an offer. schema:Product is not disjoint with any other type, so > you can also offer a company, a place, a CreativeWork, etc. > > > > > And if a Product also can be a Service, would one then only use a > Multiple-Type-Entity like 'Product Service' when the Product needs > properties that are part of Service (or inversed)? > > If you need properties from another type for describing the product, then > a multi-typed entity is the proper way of modeling, yes. > > Martin > > > > > -- > > Jarno van Driel > > Technical & Semantic SEO Consultant > > 8 Digits - Digital Marketing Technologies > > > > Tel: +31 652 847 608 > > Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JarnovanDriel > > Linkedin: linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/ > > -- *Jarno van Driel* Technical & Semantic SEO Consultant 8 Digits - Digital Marketing Technologies Tel: +31 652 847 608 Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JarnovanDriel Linkedin: linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 22:07:41 UTC