-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 822
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 822
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
ProfessionalService and Service have no stated relationship - clarify and better integrate Service into core schemas #801
Comments
Just so I don't later on blame myself for never having spoken it out loud. Can't we deprecate
The difference between when one should use Any chance we can simplify things for the elves? |
@jvandriel can you elaborate on the specific properties from http://schema.org/Product that you find most relevant to http://schema.org/Service? /cc @mfhepp |
I think there are two approaches for handling @jvandriel 's proposal:
So I suggest #1 if you want to take action on this. |
Note: My proposal #1 would also solve the lack of relationship between schema:ProfessionalService and schema:Service, because schema:ProfessionalService has makesOffer by virtue of being subclassOf schema:Organization, and the offer could include the schema:Service once it has been made a subtype of schema:Product. I would not foster a direct link from an organization to its services without an offer entity. That would break the whole idea of GoodRelations and open just another modeling pattern instead of strengthening the agent-promise-object pattern in schema.org and GoodRelation (which we will also have in my upcoming hotel proposal and which we already have for vehicles sales and rental). |
That pattern does not work well for services, where there is no fixed list I would also like to deprecate or at least rename ProfessionalService. guha On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Martin Hepp notifications@github.com
|
No, lets not make Service a Product. That kind of construct makes sense to This is exactly why we allow for multiple domains and ranges. We don't want guha On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Martin Hepp notifications@github.com
|
+1 to not making Service a Product. It would seem better to extend the domains for the following Product properties to include Service: aggregateRating And extend itemOffered to allow for offering a Service. |
There is already a way to directly associate a Service with a business using http://schema.org/provider. While I appreciate the elegance of the agent-promise-object pattern, most authors don't understand it and something like the following requires more markup, which introduces more opportunity for error:
As it stands, the markup is much simpler without the intermediate node:
|
(aside: don't use '#' to mean '#1' as it'll hyperlink to github issue number 1.)
[update : I've implemented that last part now, see below.] |
"We don't want these kind of less than intuitive constructs." What is less than intuitive for the folks I've been talking to over the years is that there's an overlap between Now I'd like to avoid talking about how the 2 might be nested or which properties each should have as I'd like to zoom in on the overlap between the 2 types - because if Is there a distinct difference between the two we can highlight that will make it clear for implementers which type they should use when? |
On the matter of dissolving ProfessionalService, I took a look and here's a sketch of new supertypes and/or names for the current subtypes of ProfessionalService:
|
"On the matter of dissolving ProfessionalService" Besides having to do 'something' for legal like you pointed out, the rest looks good to me @danbri. |
…that Service parallels relevant aspects of Product.
@vholland Your example without offer is just tiny bit simpler, but ... you end up with a situation where you suddenly have to use an entirely different pattern as soon as you want to add price information or any other details from Offer. In general, I would like to see the same basic patterns for simple and advanced use-cases alike, i.e. simplifications should ideally not introduce alternative patterns. |
Martin, While I appreciate your sentiment, I think we need to be more flexible, guha On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Martin Hepp notifications@github.com
|
I agree with @mfhepp on this one. Having multiple patterns doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I prefer consistency. |
@rvguha Thanks for stepping in! I agree that the services area is slippery ground and applying the agent-promise-offer pattern might be seen as a stretch. I am "fighting" for the use of Offer in the general case because it offers a very natural point for adding more details, namely
But again - I have no problem with deviating from that pattern for services because services are a rat hole from a conceptual modeling perspective, as we all know from DAML-S, WSMO, OWL-S, BPM ontologies, ... ;-) |
/cc @mfhepp @pmika @chaals @scor @ajax-als @tilid @shankarnat Ok folks, I have made a number of cleanup/polish/integration-oriented changes based on these discussions. Please review http://sdo-phobos.appspot.com/docs/releases.html#service-usability-fixes See URL for hypertext version, but summarizing the fixes for #801 "Fix to #801: Broadened award, category, offers to be applicable on Service. Extended itemOffered to expect Service as a possible value. Added LegalService as a supertype for Notary, Attorney. Marked ProfessionalService as deprecated, with some explanation, and added a brief account of the relationship with Service to some of the more service-oriented local business types e.g. LegalService, HomeAndConstructionBusiness. A cluster of construction-related local businesses formerly treated as ProfessionalService continue as HomeAndConstructionBusiness subtypes. Marked Attorney as deprecated in favor of LegalService per #784. Added hoursAvailable to Service." However please see the other changes for review there too as some are related. |
Since your changes make it possible It was already confusing enough as it was but now it's becoming nearly impossible to decide whether to use With the way things are proposed now I'd prefer if For the rest, +1 |
@jvandriel -1 actually, because there are a lot of Web sites that have a database that mixes products and services and they cannot easily activate one markup pattern for physical products and another one for related services. As always, conceptual clarity is just one dimension of Web vocabulary engineering ;-) I think the practical distinction between Product and Service should be that Service is for describing at a rather generic level the types of services provided by an Organization or Person, while Product is for detailed descriptions of specific types of goods and services. I am fine with removing "a haircut", though. |
I actually have experience with what you mean to say with "they cannot easily activate one markup pattern for...", so I can certainly appreciate that POV. But maybe something similar could also be stated in |
I suggest we close out our free-flowing discussions here for now, so that the existing bundle of changes made recently can be reviewed without confusion. If anyone has specific textual changes to propose for improving /Product and /Service definitions (as suggested by @jvandriel ) I suggest we take that to a dedicated sub-issue, which I've just created -> #812. I think we're done with tweaks to the schemas. So - everyone - please take a look at http://sdo-phobos.appspot.com/docs/releases.html#sdo-phobos We'll do a final "do we ship this as a release?" round in the steering committee for the whole release, but it would be good to get indicators of support here first. Thanks! /cc @tilid @scor @shankarnat @pmika @chaals @mfhepp @ajax-als @rvguha @vholland |
👍 |
Fixed in http://schema.org/docs/releases.html#v2.2 - thanks all |
Currently we have two similarly named types relating to service provision, and no stated relationship between them.
See also sub-issues: #812 (specific wording changes), #411 (serviceArea range)
1.) http://schema.org/ProfessionalService "Provider of professional services."
Notes on ProfessionalService:
2.) http://schema.org/Service "A service provided by an organization, e.g. delivery service, print services, etc."
Notes on Service:
")
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: