Re: Can a Product also be a Service or does it require a MTE?

> ...schema:Product is not disjoint with any other type, so you can also offer a company, a place, a CreativeWork, etc.
> 
>Wait a minute - "any other type"? @itemOffered has an expected value of Product. Isn't for example <div itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Event">...</div> therefor a wrong >notation?

That depends on the syntax, unfortunately:

In an RDF syntax and with a RDFS reasoner present, when using an entity of type schema:Event with the property schema:itemOffered, the client will assume that the entity is also a schema:Product (actually, it will not with the standard representation of schema.org from 

    http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html

because there, domain and range are encoded via 


    http://schema.org/domainIncludes
    http://schema.org/rangeIncludes

instead of rdfs:range and rdfs:domain, but with the versions from

    http://topbraid.org/schema/
    http://schema.rdfs.org/

the inferences will be drawn).

In Microdata, however, you must declare the entity to be a schema:Event and schema:Product in order to be able to use the respective properties on the entity.

This is the theory and does not say anything about how well this works with popular search engines.

In general, I would hope that the major search engines can handle these patterns if the entity is explicitly set to be multi-type.


Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grόίen

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 04 Jun 2014, at 01:45, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...schema:Product is not disjoint with any other type, so you can also offer a company, a place, a CreativeWork, etc.
> 
> Wait a minute - "any other type"? @itemOffered has an expected value of Product. Isn't for example <div itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Event">...</div> therefor a wrong notation?
> 
> 
> 2014-06-04 0:07 GMT+02:00 Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@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/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Wednesday, 4 June 2014 12:23:45 UTC