Add subtype of /Collection for collections of products (/ProductCollection)

[danbri]

Add a type indicating a group of products that are offered as a single collection - e.g. camera plus a lens.

[jvandriel]

For this I'd normally publish something like this:

{
  "@type":"Product",
  "name":"Camera plus a lens",
  "offers":
  {
    "@type":"Offer",
    "price":"xxx",
    "priceCurrency":"USD",
    "itemOffered":
    [
      {
        "@type":"Product",
        "name":"product 1"
      },{
        "@type":"Product",
        "name":"product 2"
      }
    ]
  }
}

Would Product (as mentioned in the example) become ProductCollection with this proposal?

[mfhepp]

Hi all: The original idea for bundles is Offer -> https://schema.org/includesObject -> https://schema.org/TypeAndQuantityNode -> typeOfGood -> Product/Service This allows specifying the quantities of the individual parts of the bundle, as well as the business function. Much more flexible and precise - you can also use varying units of measurement ("1 camera + 200 g of rice") etc. https://schema.org/TypeAndQuantityNode has amountOfThisGood - The quantity of the goods included in the offer. businessFunction - The business function (e.g. sell, lease, repair, dispose) of the offer or component of a bundle (TypeAndQuantityNode). The default is http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Sell. typeOfGood - The product that this structured value is referring to. unitCode / unitText - a unit of measurement for being more precise on the amount value (e.g. not units/pieces but grams, liters, gallons) So https://schema.org/includesObject is IMO the correct way, since 2008 (1st release of GoodRelations) and 2012 (added to schema.org). ;-) Best wishes Martin Hepp

…

----------------------------------- martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de @mfhepp

On 19. Jun 2020, at 17:35, Jarno van Driel ***@***.***> wrote: For this I'd normally publish something like this: { ***@***.***":"Product", "name":"Camera plus a lens", "offers": { ***@***.***":"Offer", "price":"xxx", "priceCurrency":"USD", "itemOffered": [ { ***@***.***":"Product", "name":"product 1" },{ ***@***.***":"Product", "name":"product 2" } ] } } Would Product (as mentioned in the example) become ProductCollection with this proposal? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[jvandriel]

Thanks for pointing that out @mfhepp (I should have known that without you having to point it out). I guess the example should have been like this instead:

{
  "@type":"Product",
  "name":"Camera plus a lens",
  "offers":
  {
    "@type":"Offer",
    "businessFunction":"http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Sell",
    "price":"xxx",
    "priceCurrency":"USD",
    "includesObject":
    [
      {
        "@type":"TypeAndQuantityNode",
        "typeOfGood":
        {
          "@type":"Product",
          "name":"Camera"
        },
        "amountOfThisGood":1
      },{
        "@type":"TypeAndQuantityNode",
        "typeOfGood":
        {
          "@type":"Product",
          "name":"Lens"
        },
        "amountOfThisGood":1
      }
    ]
  }
}

[mfhepp]

Hi Jarno, Yep, exactly!

…

On 20. Jun 2020, at 13:35, Jarno van Driel ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for pointing that out @mfhepp (I should have known that without you having to point it out). I guess the example should have been like this instead: { ***@***.***":"Product", "name":"Camera plus a lens", "offers": { ***@***.***":"Offer", "businessFunction":"http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Sell", "price":"xxx", "priceCurrency":"USD", "includesObject": [ { ***@***.***":"TypeAndQuantityNode", "typeOfGood": { ***@***.***":"Product", "name":"Camera" }, "amountOfThisGood":1 },{ ***@***.***":"TypeAndQuantityNode", "typeOfGood": { ***@***.***":"Product", "name":"Lens" }, "amountOfThisGood":1 } ] } } — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[danbri]

How about we allow 'includesObject' on ProductCollection, and then re-use that structure for the complex case; there are cases when the collection is not primarily an artifact of a (transient etc.) offer but has some longer term coherence in itself. For simpler cases we might want to skip the TypeAndQuantityNode and just point to the Product?

[jvandriel]

"For simpler cases we might want to skip the TypeAndQuantityNode and just point to the Product?"

Sounds good to me @danbri. Reason I asked whether your suggestion covers products as per the example is because per my experience a lot of ecommerce systems don't have any option (by default) to define 'composite products'. Meaning that providing includesObject information will be hard (if not impossible) for many out there, and thus having a ProductCollection type might be a good way to be able to differentiate such products from 'normal' products when further data is missing.

[github-actions]

This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity.

[danbri]

https://schema.org/ProductCollection was added in version 9, see https://schema.org/docs/releases.html