Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for

Hi Francois-Paul:

On 01 May 2014, at 13:35, Francois-Paul Servant <> wrote:

> Hmm, sorry, I now see that my variation on the way to interpret PropertyValue doesn't work. It is probably OK for product features but not for a general framework to handle generic property-value pairs.
> My concern is the following: when describing products, we need a "Feature" class, and a "feature" property, and to be able to write statements such as:
> foo:MyCar feature x:SunRoof.
> where x:SunRoof identifies the particular kind of sunroofs available on my car model, something that is well described by the manufacturer of MyCar (well, it should, at least)
> I thought to use additionalProperty and state:
> foo:MyCar schema:additionalProperty x:SunRoof.
> it could be OK, (because a product feature can be seen as a property-value pair), but we couldn't rewrite, say:
> foo:YourBook schema:author x:MartinHeppThePerson.
> using 
> foo:YourBook schema:additionalProperty x:MartinHeppThePerson.
> fps

For a fully specified car, it will be as shown in my last email to Thad:

<div itemtype="">
  <img itemprop="image" src="station_waggon123.jpg" />
  <span itemprop="name">Station Waggon 123</span>
  <div itemprop="additionalProperty" itemscope itemtype="">
	  <span itemprop="name">Sunroof</span>:
	  <meta itemprop="value" content="True">Yes

Partly-specified cars and configuration options are outside the scope of my proposal for the moment (well, in fact you could even use PropertyValue as a lightweight mechanism for indicating available engines etc., but I would not promote that and rather work on a dedicated component for configurable product, also because the back-end data sources for those products are typically highly formalized).


Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 22:47:49 UTC