- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:01 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I see - as long as there is a clear line between public services and offers in the commercial or non-commercial sense, I think we can leave it like that. The overlap is not that big then. But we should have it on the watchlist - if there is the request for new properties for schema:Service, let's try to properly relate it to schema:Offer and schema:Product Martin On 20 Sep 2014, at 10:08, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > On 20 September 2014 08:38, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org > <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: >> On 19 Sep 2014, at 22:40, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Martin and Thad. >>> >>> So... The rest of you looks at Product as if it is ProductOrService. >>> >>> In that case (see it coming?): How does the rest of you look at Service? >>> >> >> I suppose that "Service" was once added for some specific, but maybe only hypothetical use-case by one of the sponsors of schema.org. > > I believe it came relatively late, in support of its subtype, > http://schema.org/GovernmentService > see http://blog.schema.org/2013/08/vocabulary-for-describing-civic-services.html > > see also https://web.archive.org/web/20131210070108/http://schema.org/Service > > Dan >
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 08:18:33 UTC