warrantyPromise vs warranty - should they be converged to a single property?

[danbri]

via @tmarshbing

[danbri]

   On BuyAction, SellAction: http://schema.org/warrantyPromise "The warranty promise(s) included in the offer." vs 
   On Demand, Offer: http://schema.org/warranty (same text). 

Proposal: mark warranty as supersededBy warrantyPromise and have all domains included for both. 

@mfhepp any thoughts?

[mfhepp]

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.

[danbri]

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?

[mfhepp]

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

[danbri]

Here is what we have currently:

rdfa schema.rdfa |  grep -i warrantyPromise
<http://schema.org/warrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> "The warranty promise(s) included in the offer." .
<http://schema.org/durationOfWarranty> <http://schema.org/domainIncludes> <http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> .
<http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/source> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgSources#source_GoodRelationsClass> .
<http://schema.org/warrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property> .
<http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class> .
<http://schema.org/warrantyPromise> <http://schema.org/rangeIncludes> <http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> .
<http://schema.org/warrantyPromise> <http://schema.org/domainIncludes> <http://schema.org/SellAction> .
<http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "WarrantyPromise" .
<http://schema.org/warrantyPromise> <http://schema.org/domainIncludes> <http://schema.org/BuyAction> .
<http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf> <http://schema.org/StructuredValue> .
<http://schema.org/warranty> <http://schema.org/rangeIncludes> <http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> .
<http://schema.org/warrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "warrantyPromise" .
<http://schema.org/warrantyScope> <http://schema.org/domainIncludes> <http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> .
<http://schema.org/WarrantyPromise> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> "A structured value representing the duration and scope of services that will be provided to a customer free of charge in case of a defect or malfunction of a product." .

[danbri]

OK, here's what I suggest.

• NOW: mark warranty as supersededBy warrantyPromise and have all domains included for both.
• Later: replace WarrantyPromise type with WarrantyPromiseSpecification (supersededBy should apply to classes and enumerations, as well as to properties #426 was needed, but we also will need some UI / navigation changes to support supersededBy on types)

I'll open a fresh issue for latter.

[tmarshbing]

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.

[danbri]

Seems to be consensus, I've flipped the new supersededBy link, which now has: warrantyPromise supersededBy warranty.

[danbri]

90c931c