From beroca at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 16:06:08 2012 From: beroca at gmail.com (Bene Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:06:08 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] Products deliverd by Service In-Reply-To: <000901cd8b50$38251010$a86f3030$@unisa.it> References: <000901cd8b50$38251010$a86f3030$@unisa.it> Message-ID: 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 > From daniello at crmpa.unisa.it Mon Oct 8 09:45:57 2012 From: daniello at crmpa.unisa.it (Giuseppe D'Aniello) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:45:57 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] R: Products deliverd by Service In-Reply-To: References: <000901cd8b50$38251010$a86f3030$@unisa.it> Message-ID: <000301cda528$f3e57af0$dbb070d0$@unisa.it> 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 > From daniello at crmpa.unisa.it Mon Oct 22 10:16:25 2012 From: daniello at crmpa.unisa.it (Giuseppe D'Aniello) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:16:25 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] Status of Coupon and Vouchers extension Message-ID: <000301cdb02d$87830520$96890f60$@unisa.it> Dear All, We are currently using GoodRelations to model product and services in our Research Project. We have to describe also coupon and vouchers; so we'd like to know what is the development status of the "Coupon and Vouchers in GoodRelations" extension, that we found here http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/GEP/2. Thank you for your attention. Best Regards, Giuseppe D'Aniello. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: