This is the archive of the goodrelations dicussion list

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
<daniello at crmpa.unisa.it> 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: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
> @prefix gr: <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#> .
>
> @prefix irp: <http://italian-research-project.org/yourproject#> .
>
> irp: a owl:Ontology;
>     owl:imports <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1> .
>
> 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
> <daniello at crmpa.unisa.it> 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