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.
Martin Hepp (UniBW)
martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org
Thu May 7 15:19:48 CEST 2009
Hi Nicolas: Thanks for your feedback! I. As for the eligible regions: The gr:eligibleRegions property uses the two-character version of ISO 3166-1 (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) for regions or ISO 3166-2 , which breaks down the countries from ISO 3166-1 into administrative subdivisions. This is the most widely used and politically consensual standard for describing geo-political regions. By referring to standards, we keep the conceptual dynamics from other domains outside of GoodRelations. Also, it is much easier to export RDF/XML from existing standards, because ISO-3166 is very widely used. The full argument is in the GoodRelations Technical report, sections 3.2.2. and 3.4.5., available at http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/GoodRelations-TR-final.pdf II. As for describing WHAT you are selling, there are multiple options in GoodRelations: a) Use a precise products and service ontology like eClassOWL - with that you can say that you are talking of "galvaninzed bolt"s with a particular gauge and resistance to corrosion etc. Pro: Semantically precise, allows for parametric search Con: Feasible only if your range of products is already classified, otherwise you must first classify all items manually. b) Just make each product an instance of gr:ProductOrService (actually: one of its three subclasses) and describe it in natural language. Pro: Easy to create, even for less structured sources or special things Con: Not a lot of semantic (though the meta-data of GoodRelations provides already a lot of added value - if you know that something is a gr:ProductOrService, its price is 50$, and its rdfs:comment field contains the word "Guitar", you have a lot more certainty about whether this is what you are looking for and regarding its commercial meta-data). c) Use a proprietary hierarchy and convert that into a products and services ontology (details are here: http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/documentation/vocabulary-dev). Pro: Often not a lot of extra effort over b), users have access to the source hierarchy for navigation and search Con: Semantic interoperability between multiple hierarchies remains difficult. d) Using dbPedia entries - as you can see in the following paper, there are many striking arguments for that, in particular the broad coverage (more than 200,000 good categories - 8 times as much as eClassOWL contains). Hepp, Martin; Siorpaes, Katharina; Bachlechner, Daniel: Harvesting Wiki Consensus: Using Wikipedia Entries as Vocabulary for Knowledge Management, IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 54-65, Sept-Oct 2007. PDF at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/hepp-siorpaes-bachlechner-harvesting%20wikipedia%20w5054.pdf Problems with this approach are that - it is hard to filter out product categories from other dbPedia URIs (on the other hand, we could leave that up to human intelligence at the annotation stage). Also, basically everything that is an object could serve as a product (someone may offer New York city or the Moon for sale - legally problematic, but ontology-wise perfectly correct). - Lack of formal attributes for describing the products in more detail. - Difficult to implement for exports from Web shop software, since most businesses have not yet classified their products in terms of dbPedia URIs. So while ideal for manual descriptions using the GoodRelations Annotator, it is not perfect for bulk data exports. - Mapping to industrial classifications, namely eClassOWL is difficult (same as with c)). But basically we are in perfect agreement and we are already planning to add dbPedia URIs as an alternative approach for describing the type of product or service in more detail. In the meantime, you can already do so manually by editing the RDF/XML file an attaching a link to the dbPedia URI of your choice. foo:myProduct rdf:type gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance foo:myProduct rdf:type <http://dbpedia.org/resource/TV_set> However, one must be careful, because the semantics of the dbPedia URI for types of products is not necessary that of a class of functionally similar objects. dbPedia URIs can be interpreted both with a "topic" semantics or with a narrow "class" semantics. If used as a class, does <http://dbpedia.org/resource/TV_set> subsume only actual TV sets or also user's manuals for TV sets? But again - we are working on a model for the proper representation. Best - and thanks for trying and the feedback! Martin Nicolas Raoul wrote: > Hallo Martin, > > I am now browsing Sindice, and I just found this: > <rdfs:comment rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">Art > and Streetwear</rdfs:comment> > > "Art and Streetwear" is not very understandable for machines, and > that's one of the most important criterion people will search for. > Semantic can bring a lot here. > > So how about letting store owner choose terms from DBpedia ? In the > same way http://faviki.com allows users to tag pages with terms coming > from DBpedia. Maybe a selection of Wikipedia categories could cover > enough to represent all businesses. > > Same goes for: > <gr:eligibleRegions > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">DE</gr:eligibleRegions> > Using <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/resource/Germany> > would make it more semantic and more mashupable. > > Is there any reason to have strings instead ? > > vlg > Nicolas. > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: mhepp at computer.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data! ======================================================================== Webcast explaining the Web of Data for E-Commerce: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ Tool for registering your business: ---------------------------------- http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/ Overview article on Semantic Universe: ------------------------------------- http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Project page and resources for developers: ----------------------------------------- http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Upcoming events: --------------- Full-day tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.eswc2009.org/program-menu/tutorials/70 Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology http://www.semantic-conference.com/session/1881/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: martin_hepp.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 308 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/attachments/20090507/71a96019/attachment.vcf>