From semantics at 0x1b.com Sat Dec 1 23:46:48 2012 From: semantics at 0x1b.com (Ed - 0x1b, Inc.) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:46:48 -0700 Subject: [goodrelations] R: Products deliverd by Service In-Reply-To: <000301cda528$f3e57af0$dbb070d0$@unisa.it> References: <000901cd8b50$38251010$a86f3030$@unisa.it> <000301cda528$f3e57af0$dbb070d0$@unisa.it> Message-ID: Generalized, one might use the economic compliment/substitute perspective and say ProductOrService(A) - complimentBy - ProductOrService(B) to link a service with it's delivery, without constraining the relationship to "delivery" - although i don't know if this terminology is widespread enough for GoodRelations, I should probably look to see if it isn't already there... there may be some FOB nodes in there already. On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Giuseppe D'Aniello wrote: > Thank you, Bene! > You're right, we want to distinguish products and services. > I think that your solution is suitable for our needs, we'll try it! > Thank you again. > > Best regards, > Giuseppe D'Aniello. > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Bene Rodriguez [mailto:beroca at gmail.com] > Inviato: 04 October 2012 16:06 > A: Giuseppe D'Aniello > Cc: goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > Oggetto: Re: [goodrelations] Products deliverd by Service > > Dear Giuseppe, > > Sorry for the very late response. > > Going over your email description, I am afraid I can get a clear idea > of your modeling scenario. > Please, could you provide some specific examples of what you would > like to represent as a "product" and as a "service" in your context? > > >From your description, it seems that you might need to distinguish > between a "product" and a "service". > If this assumption is correct, one way in which you could do that > using GoodRelations, could be subtyping the class gr:ProductOrService > into the two classes "product" and "service" in your own project > namespace. > > A minimal example in turtle, could be as follows: > > @prefix rdf: . > @prefix rdfs: . > @prefix owl: . > @prefix gr: . > > @prefix irp: . > > irp: a owl:Ontology; > owl:imports . > > irp:Product a owl:Class; > rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService . > > irp:Service a owl:Class; > rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService . > > Then, if you want to indicate which product (or instance of > irp:Product) delivers which service (or instance of irp:Service), you > could introduce the new "deliveredBy" property that you mention. A new > property, because as you also mention, the existing properties in > GoodRelations that relate a gr:ProductOrService to another > gr:ProductOrService do not seem to be fit for your purpose. > > You can still use gr:ProductOrService as the domain and range of > "deliveredBy", however, if you want more granularity to capture the > direction of the "deliverdBy" relation, now you could use irp:Service > as the domain and irp:Product as the range to convey that a particular > service is delivered by a particular product. Or in turtle: > > irp:deliveredBy a owl:ObjectProperty; > rdfs:domain irp:Service; > rdfs:range irp:Product . > > (And you could even add an inverse property "delivers" to capture the > relation the other way around, etc.) > > I hope this helps. > Would this approach suit your modeling needs? > > Best regards, > Bene Rodriguez > -- > Research Associate > E-Business and Web Science Research Group > Department of General Management and E-Business > Universitaet der Bundeswehr Munich (Germany) > phone: +49 89 6004-2849 > email: benedicto.rodriguez at ebusiness-unibw.org > web: http://purl.org/beroca > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Giuseppe D'Aniello > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I'm working on an Italian Research Project which is about a platform for >> semantic services delivery and e-money systems. >> >> We have to describe different services that could deliver some products to >> users (e.g. different e-commerce services that offers some products) and > we >> have to represent the property between each service and the offered >> products. >> >> Every service and every product is an instance of ProductOrService; we >> wouldn't use the property gr:isConsumableFor, gr:isSimilarTo and >> gr:isAccessoryOrSparePartOf to represent this property, because the > meaning >> of these properties is different from our needs. >> >> So, we aim to create another property, called deliveredBy that has for > range >> and domain gr:ProductOrService; but we would ask you some suggestions > about >> our problem and if you think that our solution is correct. >> >> Another idea could be to create a property between gr:Offering and >> gr:ProductOrService; in this way, we could link the service with the offer >> of some product. >> >> What do you think about it? >> >> Best regards. >> >> >> >> Giuseppe. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> goodrelations mailing list >> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org >> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations >> > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations