W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

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

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:14:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CADE8KM7DqXAyjcO6u8ydKBWQvBjM3HQBALYTJAG6LQu4DD1QCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On May 30, 2014 6:45 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's a slightly loose definition of offer (at least, in the GR context);
 in the sense used in GR  it appears to be  "an offer is a display of
willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms, made in a way that
would lead a reasonable person to understand that an acceptance, having
been sought, will result in a binding contract" (Black's Law Dictionary).

'vendor' and 'seller' are synonyms.

merchant has legal connotations (a merchant may be held to a higher
standard of expertise than a nonmerchant) , and does not apply to one
providing services.

Legally binding promises can be made to transfer temporary possession/right
of occupancy, etc (without changing ownership); renting/leasing. However,
promises to make gifts are generally not binding, and do not fit neatly
into the offer/acceptance paradigm.

Vocabulary is cheap.   Lawyers, less so.
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 17:14:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:31 UTC