Re: why Vehicle subClassOf Product ? (also: Commercial, Economic)

In general I agree.

Note, however, that MTE in microdata are problematic, because additionalType does not formally make the properties from that second type valid properties for the entity, according to the Microdata spec, because the vocabulary of the main type defines the finite list of properties available for that type. Thus an MTE in Microdata cannot formally have the properties from that second type.

I think this is more of a problem of Microdata than schema.org and I hope that Google and all others are tolerating such additional properties, though.

Martin

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp





On 26 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> "IF we can establish it as a standard that products are multi-typed entities and IF all major consumers of schema.org markup can process this"
> 
> I know from Google's Webmaster Tools reports that Google parses MTEs quite fine, although I can't tell from those whether they 'understand' them as well or use MTE data for their search results.
> 
> And since partial confirmation by GWT can hardly be considered proof that it's fine to use MTEs it would indeed be very nice if all the sponsors could inform us where they stand in regards to MTEs - something which is long overdue IMHO.
> 
> 2015-03-26 15:26 GMT+01:00 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>:
> IF we can establish it as a standard that products are multi-typed entities and IF all major consumers of schema.org markup can process this, then it would indeed good to
> 
> - move all subtypes of Product up to a new branch of Thing
> - move up all properties of Product that are not tied to the Product role up to that subtype(s) of Thing (e.g weight)
> 
> The historic reason for having Car etc. below Product was that
> 
> - we could not rely on multi-typing, because in Microdata, multi-typed entities are not fully supported (we have additionalProperty and multi-types from the same vocab are in general okay, but there are unresolved problems with properties in this case)
> 
> - human users are more likely to use such types properly if they see all properties that apply, i.e. such from the nature of the product and from the product role.
> 
> GoodRelations has always relied on the multi-type approach, but in a bit more complicated manner, see
> 
>     http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Extensions (a bit outdated)
>     http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Vocabularies
> 
> But as said, I am happy to clean this up if the two preconditions above are met.
> 
> Martin
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> 
> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Mar 2015, at 14:35, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > As I understand Product acts as Class for adding e-commerce aspect to
> > other Things. Most likely to use it with "@type": ["Book", "Product"] or
> > additionalType when used in microdata.
> >
> > I don't understand why Vehicle landed as subClassOf Product? I also
> > don't understand which other things may end up subclassing Product in
> > the future and which will for example subclass CreativeWork or Place.
> >
> > IMO Vehicle, just as Place could directly subclass Thing. Or we could
> > also add Tangible class to deal in a future with with Device etc. (e.g.
> > http://schema.org/MedicalDevice)
> >
> > It reminds me about my question long time ago about POI (Point Of
> > Interest). Which also doesn't make that much sense in class hierarchy
> > but could similar as Product serve as a class to use in addition to
> > other classes.
> >
> > I haven't worked with ruby programming language for quite some time, but
> > in some ways I see similarity to Class vs. Module (besides many other
> > differences from Object Oriented Programming, single parent doesn't
> > apply here as well)
> > This answer has relevant example which happens to use a Vehicle
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1282864/ruby-inheritance-vs-mixins/1282895#1282895
> >
> > In a way Product sounds to me as something more in direction of
> > 'Commercial' or broader 'Economic'.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:49:18 UTC