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

>
> "Thus an MTE in Microdata cannot formally have the properties from that
> second type."


Yes and no. Yes in a sense that the microdata specs say state that as long
as the types are from the same vocabulary all is fine:

The itemtype attribute, if specified, must have a value that is an
> unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are case-sensitive,
> each of which is a valid URL that is an absolute URL, and all of which are
> defined to use the same vocabulary. The attribute's value must have at
> least one token.


No in sense that this wouldn't work if one uses multiple vocabularies.
Which is something we might consider trying to change as I think it's weird
that RDFa and JSON-LD do allow this, making this situation confusing for
publishers to say the least.

2015-03-26 15:48 GMT+01:00 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>:

> 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?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>