- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:57:59 +0200
- To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, Mary Ayers <mary.ayers@onetel.net>
Thanks Martin, nice to hear the thinking behind the design choices. 2009/9/10 Martin Hepp (UniBW) <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>: > Dear Danny: > Apologies for the delay ;-) >> >> Looking again at the vocab, the only significant part I'd do >> differently is ProductOrService (and similarly structured related >> classes). While in the context of selling stuff this combination fits >> well, there are big differences nearby, e.g. physical characteristics, >> means of delivery. >> >> > > You are right, gr:ProductsAndServices and its subclasses combine objects of > two different kinds - basically, > - objects - "things that can be claimed to exist" (Proton) > - happings > > Products are basically all objects on which property rights can be obtained > and transferred, while Services are basically happenings that take place in > the favor of someone and. > > So the natural modeling would be a class gr:Product and a class gr:Service. > > GoodRelations uses gr:ProductOrService, which is union of those two classes, > because with many important data sources, it is difficult to distinguish the > products from the services automatically and reliably. Remember, we often > have shop systems with several 100k items, and very often a few percent of > the entries are services. > > It is basically a trade-off decision between the ease of populating the > ontology vs. maximizing the reuse of the data. > > See also > > http://www.heppnetz.de/files/iswc-lightning-talk-hepp3.png > > Another reason is that from the commercial perspective, there are many > properties that are to be attached to both products and services, so we need > the superclass anyway. > > I expect now a lot of counterarguments from people who worked on > fine-grained modeling of services ;-) Before anybody sends flames, please > note that GoodRelations aims at services only insofar as "commodity > services", like hairdressing, waste disposal, cleaning, etc. is concerned. > > Best > Martin > > PS: See recent stats on GoodRelations adoption at > http://pingthesemanticweb.com/stats/types.php > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: mhepp@computer.org > 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 > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > ================================================================= > > Webcast: > http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ > > Recipe for Yahoo SearcMonkey: > http://tr.im/rAbN > > Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based > E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" > http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp > > Overview article on Semantic Universe: > http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe > > Project page: > http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > Resources for developers: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations > > Tutorial materials: > CEC'09 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce: A Hands-on > Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey > http://tr.im/grcec09 > > -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 07:58:41 UTC