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

I know that the proposal for modification of MedicalEntity now also
suggests @careProvider, yet another variant. Now during the discussion
about that proposal I suggested to reuse @provider, because of more or less
the same reasons Chaals indicates.

So I'm  for @offeredBy.

I do wonder though if there are any consequences for @seller and @provider.
If I understand it right those came with Goodrelations and would like to
know if @offeredBy could cause any conflict there.


2014-05-30 11:30 GMT+02:00 Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>:

> +1
>
> ~Richard
>
> On 29 May 2014, at 20:00, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/29/14 2:06 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> >> Trying to clean little corners where dust collects:
> >>
> >> We currently have
> >>
> >> http://schema.org/seller
> >> http://schema.org/vendor
> >> http://schema.org/merchant
> >> http://schema.org/provider
> >> http://xkcd.com/927
> >>
> >> all of which point to the entity who agrees, or may agree, to give
> something to or do something for you. (Roughly. It could be to someone
> else…, or for some third party, or…)
> >>
> >> Working backwards from "provider", which can describe e.g. the issuer
> of a airplane ticket, we were concerned that it is easy to confuse it with
> the use of "serviceOperator" - the entity that does the actual work
> involved in the deal, such as the airline who flies the plane in the ticket
> example. (Actually In "Flight" this is currently called "carrier", but we
> propose to change that and align it with "GovernmentService").
> >>
> >> It seems to make more sense to use something like "offeredBy" -
> although we cannot make ambiguity impossible, this seems to reduce the risk
> to a better level.
> >>
> >> Having got to that point, it seemed to make sense to supersede all four
> of the above properties with offeredBy. It isn't clear that there is enough
> difference between them to justify keeping 4 different terms.
> >>
> >> Before storming into the schema.org site and imposing such a decision,
> are there reasons why this is a bad idea, and we should retain the current
> setup?
> >>
> >> Or do people think we should have done this last week already?
> >>
> >> Could we use a chain of "offeredBy" relationships instead of having a
> bookingAgent for a reservation?
> >>
> >> E.g. My flight serviceProvider is Lufthansa, the Flight is offeredBy
> ANA who sold the ticket, but the ticket itself was offeredBy
> CheapFlightsLimited to me as a consumer…
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> Chaals
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> >> chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
> >
> > +1
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kingsley Idehen
> > Founder & CEO
> > OpenLink Software
> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> > Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>