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

>
> The basic concern was to maintain the notion that "an offer is the
> promise to transfer some rights on something"


I guess that would sort of go for @seller as well. Although @merchant and
@vendor could be considered the same as @seller (well, at least by me).
Maybe merging those into one property would be better.

And I also would be very much for not adding new types of @provider. IMHO
one of those seems enough.


2014-05-30 12:43 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:

> On 30 May 2014 10:56, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thanks. I had a brief exchange with Martin Hepp yesterday - he has
> some concerns that we maintain some of the conceptual distinctions
> underlying Good Relations, will go into more detail next week. The
> basic concern was to maintain the notion that "an offer is the promise
> to transfer some rights on something", and that if we use the word
> "offer", that's what it should continue to mean.
>
> Dan
>