Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for

Hi Jason:

On 02 May 2014, at 19:03, Jason Douglas <> wrote:

> Could we use the existing extension mechanism instead of inventing a new one?  Something like add productSpecification that expects QuantitativeValue and then extend it.  So:
> {
>   @type: Product
>   productSpecification/screenSize : {
>     value: 46
>     unitCode: "CMT"
>   }
> }
IMO, no. Of course, the meta-model for quantitative and quantitative values in, imported from GoodRelations, is powerful. But it is targeted at data of a cleaner state than the new proposal:

- You have to know whether the value is a quantitative, a qualitative, or a Boolean value. That is non-trivial and clumsy to do at the level of populating an HTML template. For instance, a string "12" may be a number or it may be a code. In fact when we wrote tools for converting vocabularies to OWL ontologies adhering to the GoodRelations meta-model, like, the hardest part is to make this distinction.

- Also, requires a degree of formality that is good for consumption, but hard for data publishers. You have to find the proper UN/CEFACT Common Code and split ranges properly.

- is a less structured way of exposing the characteristics of an entity. I think that consumers of in RDF worlds will try to lift such data to and and match the property to a standardized one. But that is another story.

We could have made blurrier by adding unitText and propertyID to it, but after quite some thinking I have a strong opinion that we should keep the lighter structures in a dedicated type.


Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 21:22:16 UTC