@type is missing "Health and Wellness"

[ddr5292]

Without this type, there is no way to add a Gym, Health Club, or Fitness Studio. It is not OK (because they are neither "Health" related or "Beauty" related - not really) to have it be a sub-type and anyway most schema plugins do not support sub-types. Maybe instead, you can change the type to "Health, Wellness and Beauty" - that would work.

[jvandriel]

There's SportsClub, though if you want to be even more specific you can always express a multi-typed entity like: "@type": ["SportsClub","http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1065656"].

As for what any plugin providers may or may not support, it's not up to this vocabulary's community to get involved in that. You will have to get in touch with the developers of the respective plugins to discuss any wishes you have.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Hi Jarno (@jvandriel)!
I know that schema declares s:additionalType rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type but that's ontologically impure,
since those are usually concepts but not classes.
Eg if you look at wd:Q1065656, it is neither rdfs:Class, owl:Class nor has relations rdfs:subClassOf nor incoming relations rdf:type.

So in the Ontotext KG we disregard the above schema declaration, and would split them as follows:

"@type": "SportsClub",
"additionalType": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1065656"

[jvandriel]

Interesting comment @VladimirAlexiev!

Would the outcome have been any different if I had used DBPedia or ProductOntology URIs instead?

For example:

"@type": ["SportsClub","http://dbpedia.org/resource/Health_club"]

or

"@type": ["SportsClub","http://www.productontology.org/id/Health_club"]

[VladimirAlexiev]

Hi @jvandriel !

You should NOT use dbr: resources as classes, you should only use dbo:

• see immediate subclasses of Organisation here https://dbpedia.org/ontology/Organisation
• see all descendant subclasses with this query
• see RDF of the ontology here https://dbpedia.org/ontology/
• see more info here https://www.dbpedia.org/resources/ontology/

BTW, status of some other DBPedia public services:

• The hierarchy link on https://mappings.dbpedia.org/index.php/Exploring_the_Ontology is broken
• https://triplydb.com/DBpedia-association/dbpedia/insights/classHierarchy?type=bubbles shows the hierarchy but as bubbles not tree, so it's a bit hard to explore
• https://live.dbpedia.org/sparql: 'The web-site you are currently trying to access is under maintenance at this time. We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused."

[ddr5292]

I am a bit unclear on all this. Is this the correct text that should appear in my schema (or something else?)

"@type": ["SportsClub","http://dbpedia.org/resource/Health_club"]

[mfhepp]

URIs from http://www.productontology.org solve exactly this problem. They are defined as proper classes on the basis of Wikipedia lemmata and hence avoid all of the problems sketched above.

[jvandriel]

Taking all the comments into account the correct answer is... 😉

"@type": ["SportsClub","http://www.productontology.org/id/Health_club"]

[jvandriel]

Though if you don't mind me asking, in your opinion, how would you suggest using WikiData or DBPedia concept URIs (besides as @id values), are there ways of making useful use of these? @mfhepp, @VladimirAlexiev

[mfhepp]

Though if you don't mind me asking, in your opinion, how would you suggest using WikiData or DBPedia concept URIs (besides as @id values), are there ways of making useful use of these? @mfhepp, @VladimirAlexiev

You could define your own rdfs:Class that somehow links to the Wikidata/DBPedia concept URI and then use that.

So similar to what www.productontology.org is doing, except for two differences

1. The URIs referenced in www.productontology.org are from Wikipedia and hence for documents.
2. www.productontology.org defines each class as a subclass of gr:ProductOrService and schema:Product; you could use any more suitable classes for your purposes (e.g. schema:LocalBusiness).

This class definition could actually be part of your own markup on the respective page or defined for an entire Website in a JSON-LD script element.

But don't expect major search engines to understand this approach, because there will be too much indirection and complexity for processing this at scale. It may be useful for academic prototypes, proofs of concept, or other purposes (e.g. intelligent Web analytics),

An example of such a class definition is e.g. in http://www.productontology.org/doc/Racing_bicycle.ttl.

[mfhepp]

Taking all the comments into account the correct answer is... 😉

"@type": ["SportsClub","http://www.productontology.org/id/Health_club"]

Yes, exactly.

And don't be irritated that the PTO classes make it a product, too. Because actually, a product in GoodRelations and schema.org is at its core a role that some thing can have. Obviously, you can offer a Restaurant for sale. Or a MedicalScholarlyArticle. Or a Painting.

So practically, using the URIs from www.productontology.org is the best way to go, IMO.

BTW, I have plans to update this service, just too busy these days. But it will be done.

[mfhepp]

For others who end up here: The basic problems and principles are explained in the www.productontology.org FAQs.

[jvandriel]

Thanks for that @mfhepp.

I wasn't asking because of anything search engine-related though. I'm well aware that making statements beyond what they have documented has very little chance of being used by them.

That doesn't mean I can't try to learn more and attempt to provide useful markup in other ways as well. Who knows if it might be useful somehow in the future (I know, I'm a geek).

[ddr5292]

Would this also be correct? The company is comprised of many personal trainers and nutritionists. I have yet to find any way to properly classify them.

"@type": ["SportsClub","http://www.productontology.org/id/Personal_trainer"],

Maybe, I can add an additional "alternate" (they also are nutritionists.) Is this possible?

Also on the page http://www.productontology.org/doc/Personal_trainer, it does not include a usage that includes the most common way I see this discussed on the web, namely using json, like this:

<script type="application/ld+json">{"@context":"https://schema.org", "@type": ["SportsClub","http://www.productontology.org/id/Personal_trainer"], etc.

[ddr5292]

I like the idea of decentralizing the "list" - linking to Wikipedia makes sense - especially if using multiple types is possible. No single classification can be applied to most businesses I work with. But unfortunately Wikipedia "types" are singular. I think the best thing that you folks can do is provide guidance on using your schema to Web Developers and Web Designers. There just is no good documentation out there anywhere (that I could find.)