New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
warrantyPromise vs warranty - should they be converged to a single property? #316
Comments
@mfhepp any thoughts? |
I am perfectly fine with this and think it will not break anything in the GoodRelations model. Note that the range of warrantyScope can be both standardized scopes (like http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Labor-BringIn) or vendor-specific ones (the ACME heavenly all-inclusive warranty). So you should be able to cover most typical use cases. I also think it is natural that both offers and completed purchases have warranty promises. PS: I would only potentially object attaching warrantyPromise to Product or Service directly, because the warranty promise is bound to the context of a commercial transaction. PPS: We could think about extending the general model for warranty promises, but I would postpone that a little bit since the element is not heavily used at the moment. |
Ok, thanks. My thinking btw was that, given these two similarly named properties, the one to standardize on is the one with the most specific name, i.e. "warrantyPromise". However I realise now that this does run into another old issue that we try to avoid, which is having pairs of properties in which a property and a term have identical names except for their case (i.e. http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise vs http://schema.org/warrantyPromise). Would converging on http://schema.org/warranty be ok, or is the property name too broad for its specific meaning? |
This is a historic relict from the GoodRelations integration, were the property name was http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#hasWarrantyPromise. The simplest solution, IMO, is to rename schema:WarrantyPromise to schema:WarrantyPromiseSpecification. That would be consistent with the naming we have for other such nodes, and since the pattern is not yet widely used, I think it will not really break a lot of applications and data if we just rename WarrantyPromise to schema:WarrantyPromiseSpecification. Martin |
Here is what we have currently:
|
OK, here's what I suggest.
I'll open a fresh issue for latter. |
Are the usage stats on sdo-gozer.appspot accurate? If so, it looks like warranty is relatively widely used, and much more so than warrantyPromise. Given this, perhaps we should just standardize on warranty. |
Seems to be consensus, I've flipped the new supersededBy link, which now has: warrantyPromise supersededBy warranty. |
via @tmarshbing
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: