- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:19:23 +0200
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
>> >> And adding to Offer >> http://schema.org/notAvailableAtOrFrom > Whenever we change Offer I think we should check if it also makes sense > for Demand. Also looking at name of this property @|@ I would propose > considering some alternative solutions before committing to this one. I > have some suggestions but would prefer to share them in github PR (or Issue) Yes, absolutely! Demand is the very brother/sister of Offer and should typically share all properties and be in the range of all properties that allow Offer. It would even make sense to add a check step to the testing of schema.org that this holds. Historically, Offer/Offering in GoodRelations could represent both demand and supply, and the distinction was made by whether gr:offers or gr:seeks links the offer to a person or organization. In the course of the schema.org integration, I changed the meaning of gr:Offering to what it was in schema as schema:Offer, narrowing it to the supply side, and adding a new type schema:Demand (which will be mirrored in GR as gr:Demand as soon as I find the time). The design rationale was that the meaning of a type should not critically depend on the type of an inbound relationship to it, because in an open world, we may not have that triple "A gr:seeks B" or "A gr:offers B" and will then not know whether this is an offer or someone searching for an offer. This was not backwards-compatible but affected only so little data that I think it was justifiable (basically only tendering prototypes, but no live applications). Martin
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 09:19:47 UTC