Warning: This tool or project is no longer maintained and kept available only for archival purposes. Since GoodRelations and schema.org have evolved significantly in the past years, the current status available on this page is unlikely to function as expected. We take no responsibility for any damage caused by the use of this outdated work, to the extent legally possible.

Due to a lack of resources, we are unable to provide support for this project outside of consulting projects or sponsored research. Please contact us if you can contribute resources to update and enhance these resources.

GoodRelations - The Web Vocabulary for E-Commerce

This is the archive of the goodrelations dicussion list

GoodRelations is a standardized vocabulary for product, price, and company data that can (1) be embedded into existing static and dynamic Web pages and that (2) can be processed by other computers. This increases the visibility of your products and services in the latest generation of search engines, recommender systems, and other novel applications.

[goodrelations] vso:feature, dpPedia and productontology

François-Paul Servant fps at semanlink.net
Sat Jan 26 13:59:57 CET 2013 

In http://www.productontology.org/#faq
I read:
"DBpedia URIs cannot be used for modeling the type of real-world objects, in particular in the context of the GoodRelations ontology, because
- they lack a suitable semantics for being used as classes, and
- they are not valid OWL DL."

In http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/vso/ns#feature
the comment about vso:feature says:
"Use DBPedia resources to indicate the features, if possible."

I don't see what they should be a difference between a product and a feature of a product wrt their modeling

If it is bad to say that foo:mySolderingIron rdf:type dbPedia:Soldering_iron
it must also be bad to say that
foo:myRegulatedAirConditioner rdf:type dbPedia:Air_conditioner

Best,

fps

More information about the goodrelations mailing list