You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Schema.org provides a specification of calendar dates. For example, the @PriceSpecification property validFrom expects a beginning date (a point in time). And the property validThrough expects an ending date (also a point in time).
However, there are many contracts that specify time periods rather than specific dates/points-in-time.
Consider a software product with offer/@Offer that has an acquisition price and an optional maintenance price.
There would be two @Offer, each with a @PriceSpecification.
But we don't know the point-in-time (Date)
Instead, we should use DateTime and specify a date range e.g. @PriceSpecification/validPeriod where the offer-1 "validPeriod" is P1Y and offer-2 "validPeriod" is P2Y.
I would interpret the above to say in the vernacular: the price of the product for year 1 is (5x), and the price of the product for year 2 is (1x).
A financial lease is similar, but usually with a constant payment stream over the "validPeriod."
A mortgage is much more difficult, so let's not go there.
The type @OwnnershipInfo is similar to a software license or a lease. But the properties ownedFrom and ownedTo also are Date specific, not DateTime specific which supports time periods
How to handle this issue?
One approach might be to re-define validFrom (or ownedFrom) as either a beginning Dateor the beginning of a time period.
Another approach might be to create a new property with the label validFor where values would be in the ISO 8601 time interval format
For example @CreativeWork/temporalCoverage allows ISO 8601 values.
So a third approach might be to add the property temporalCoverage to types such as @PriceSpecification.
Am I missing a solution to the time period problem for prices, ownership and leasing?
Or would one of the above make sense to add to the schema.org data model?
copying @mfhepp as GoodRelations was the source of these terms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the link @jvandriel Jarno. Many of our issues are discussed there; in fact, our problems are a subset of that issue, so we'll participate there.
Schema.org provides a specification of calendar dates. For example, the
@PriceSpecification
propertyvalidFrom
expects a beginning date (a point in time). And the propertyvalidThrough
expects an ending date (also a point in time).However, there are many contracts that specify time periods rather than specific dates/points-in-time.
Consider a software product with
offer/@Offer
that has an acquisition price and an optional maintenance price.There would be two
@Offer
, each with a@PriceSpecification
.But we don't know the point-in-time (
Date
)Instead, we should use
DateTime
and specify a date range e.g.@PriceSpecification/validPeriod
where the offer-1 "validPeriod" isP1Y
and offer-2 "validPeriod" isP2Y
.I would interpret the above to say in the vernacular: the price of the product for year 1 is (5x), and the price of the product for year 2 is (1x).
A financial lease is similar, but usually with a constant payment stream over the "validPeriod."
A mortgage is much more difficult, so let's not go there.
The type
@OwnnershipInfo
is similar to a software license or a lease. But the propertiesownedFrom
andownedTo
also areDate
specific, notDateTime
specific which supports time periodsHow to handle this issue?
One approach might be to re-define
validFrom
(orownedFrom
) as either a beginningDate
or the beginning of a time period.Another approach might be to create a new property with the label
validFor
where values would be in the ISO 8601 time interval formatFor example
@CreativeWork/temporalCoverage
allows ISO 8601 values.So a third approach might be to add the property
temporalCoverage
to types such as@PriceSpecification
.Am I missing a solution to the time period problem for prices, ownership and leasing?
Or would one of the above make sense to add to the schema.org data model?
copying @mfhepp as GoodRelations was the source of these terms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: