Re: Schema.org proposal: New Actions and Actions contigent on an Offer

Hi Vicki:

From the perspective of GoodRelations,

> http://schema.org/contingentOnOffer

and

> http://schema.org/notAvailableAtOrFrom

are fine. In general, we should think about how to handle negation in schema.org. Historically, GoodRelations has been based on positive statements only (influenced bynthe OWA assumption of the Semantic Web as the context in which GR was initially constructed). 

This can lead to lengthy markup if e.g. you ship to all countries but a few. There are other parts of GoodRelations (and likely schema.org) in which this problem may emerge. 

The historic reason for avoiding such negative properties was that it complicates the consumption in an RDF environment with SPARQL, because you will need to cater for multiple patterns in the data. But this is likely not problematic in the schema.org environment.

Martin



On 17 Sep 2014, at 23:21, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote:

> In order to model the operation of devices and applications, we propose adding the following new Actions:
> 
> http://schema.org/OperateAction
> http://schema.org/ActivateAction
> http://schema.org/DectivateAction
> http://schema.org/ResumeAction
> http://schema.org/SuspendAction
> 
> Actions around media consumption often require buying or leasing media. To that end, we propose adding to ConsumeAction
> 
> http://schema.org/contingentOnOffer
> 
> And adding to Offer
> http://schema.org/notAvailableAtOrFrom
> 
> See the attached PDF for details.
> 
> As always, comments are welcome,
> Vicki
> 
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com 
>  
> <Schema.orgAdditionstoActions.pdf>

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 07:58:28 UTC