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

>
> "What about "requiresAcceptanceOf"? Because the thing will not depend on
> an offer but on accepting that offer."


+1 (makes more sense to me at least)

2014-09-19 11:19 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.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
>