- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:22:20 +0200
- To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Could be; I did not because offers comes from the "old" schema.org ecommerce model (in GR the link is from the Offer to the Product, not vice versa). But if this property is meant to live, it could be added to Service, too. Martin On 18 Sep 2014, at 22:34, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: > Can the one submitting the respective pull request please make sure that the additional rangeIncludes statements are added to chema:itemOffered and schema:typeOfGood? > > Shouldn't 'offers' be added to Service as well than? > > > > 2014-09-18 22:14 GMT+02:00 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:15 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > > and maybe while on it, for schema:itemOffered we could extend > > schema:rangeIncludes with Service and Role ? > > > > :) > > > > See above. We must do that. > > Can the one submitting the respective pull request please make sure that the additional rangeIncludes statements are added to chema:itemOffered and schema:typeOfGood? > > I'll update the proposal and circulate that before putting together a pull request. > > - Vicki > > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com > >
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 09:22:43 UTC