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

I would like to resurrect this discussion.  I propose the following:

1. The provider property has existed on CreativeWork for some time and is
heavily used. Leave it as is.
2. Deprecate all other uses of provider under a new property
"serviceProvider". The domain would be:
    BusTrip
    Flight
    Reservation
    Service
   TrainTrip

3. Keep carrier on ParcelDelivery.
4. Deprecate carrier on Flight.
5. Expand the domain for the existing serviceOperator to include Flight.
Flight > serviceOperator replaces Flight > carrier.
6. Deprecate vendor in favor of BuyAction > seller.
7. Deprecate merchant in favor of Order > seller.

We are still left with non-commercial Offers using the term "seller". Any
thoughts on a more inclusive term are welcome.

- Vicki



Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com



On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
wrote:

>  Re "non-commercial": Non-commercial offers are no different from other
> others, except for that you do not expect a compensation, so you could
> simply say that the price is 0 EUR/USD an then it will be clear for a
> client that what you offer is for free.
>
>  Martin
>
>
>  Martin I think your reply was meant for this thread - not the one you
> added it to. ;-)
>
>  I agree that Offer, especially after the description was tweaked is
> equally applicable for commercial or non-commercial offers.  My concern is
> the assumed commercial nature of a ‘seller’ “a person who sells something"
>
>  ~Richard
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *Resent-From: * <public-vocabs@w3.org>
>  *From: *"Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
>  *Subject: * *Re: offeredBy to supersede vendor, merchant, provider,
> seller, …?*
>  *Date: *4 June 2014 08:05:52 BST
>  *To: *"Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>
>  *Cc: *Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Thad Guidry <
> thadguidry@gmail.com>, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "<
> public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Martin Hepp <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>
>  Whilst we are looking at this, which makes sense to me, can we address
> the issue of Offer.seller being inappropriately named for non-commercial
> offers (e.g.. to loan a book).
>
>  This could be simply solved by extending the domain of provider to
> include Offer.
>
>  Also would it make sense to make seller a sub property of provider - in
> the light of  “*If a 'seller' is not provided, it is assumed the
> 'provider' is also the 'seller’.*"
>
>   ~Richard
>
>  On 4 Jun 2014, at 00:05, Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>   Properties and Classes associated with describing the entities involved
> in offering or selling something.
>
>  *provider* - The person or organization providing the service,
> reservation, or creative work. The provider may subcontract out the service.
>  Service.provider
>  Taxi.provider
>  GovernmentService.provider
>  CreativeWork.provider
>  Reservation.provider **
>  Flight.provider
>  TrainTrip.provider
>  BusTrip.provider
>
>  *serviceOperator* - The operating organization, if different from the
> provider. This enables the representation of services that are provided by
> an organization, but operated by another organization like a subcontractor.
>  GovernmentService.serviceOperator
>
>  *bookingAgent *- If the reservation was not booked directly through the
> provider, the third-party booking agent can be recorded through this
> property.
>  Reservation.bookingAgent **
>
>  *vendor* - A sub property of participant. The seller. The
> participant/person/organization that sold the object.
>  BuyAction.vendor
>
>  *merchant* - The party taking the order (e.g. Amazon.com
> <http://amazon.com/> is a merchant for many sellers).
>  Order.merchant
>
>  *seller* - The organization or person making the offer.
>  Offer.seller
>
>  *carrier* - The party responsible for the parcel delivery.
>  Flight.carrier
>  ParcelDelivery.carrier
>
>  ** note that Reservation encompasses the subclasses (BusReservation,
> EventReservation, FlightReservation, FoodEstablishmentReservation,
> LodingReservation, RentalCarReservation, ReservationPackage,
> TaxiReservation, TrainReservation)
>
>  *Proposed Changes*
>
>  ·         Leverage 'provider' to describe the service provider, service
> operator, or service performer and update its description to more clearly
> indicate this intended usage;
>  ·         Leverage 'seller' property to describe the entities which sell
> a service on behalf of the actual service provider. In the case of flights,
> this would be the airline through which a flight was booked.  If a 'seller'
> is not provided, it is assumed the 'provider' is also the 'seller'.
>  ·         Introduce a 'marketplace' property to describe the entities
> through which 'sellers' (or 'providers' as sellers) advertise themselves
> and are discovered by buyers or agents of the buyer.  Amazon and Expedia
> would be examples of marketplaces.
>  ·         Introduce an 'agency' property to describe entities which
> purchase or book services from sellers on behalf of entity for which the
> service will be performed.  Concur travel agency would be an example of an
> agency.
>
>  ·         deprecate 'vendor' in favor of re-using 'seller'
>  ·         deprecate 'merchant' in favor of a new 'marketplace' property;
> avoids confusion w/ 'seller'
>  ·         deprecate 'carrier' within Flight and ParcelDelivery in favor
> of using the newly described 'provider'
>  ·         leverage 'provider' to describe what 'serviceOperator' is
> intended to describe and leverage 'seller' to describe what was previously
> described via 'provider'
>  ·         deprecate 'bookingAgent' in favor of the proposed more generic
> 'agency' property
>
>
>  *From:* Vicki Tardif Holland [mailto:vtardif@google.com
> <vtardif@google.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:54 AM
> *To:* Thad Guidry
> *Cc:* Simon Spero; PublicVocabs; Martin Hepp
> *Subject:* Re: offeredBy to supersede vendor, merchant, provider, seller,
> …?
>
>
>  On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Cape Air could also be a provider as well... they "provide the flight" ..
> for the cost of a ticket offeredBy a vendor American Airlines.  Would that
> be true, Vicki ?
>
>
> In theory, yes. If Cape Air provided the ticket, the provider would be
> Cape Air and one could add the redundant statement that Cape Air is also
> the operator.
>
>   I would like the vocabulary to be a little less ambiguous on this point
> so that authors have some hope of getting their markup correct.
>
>   - Vicki
>
>
>   Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>
>
>
>