Warning: This tool or project is no longer maintained and kept available only for archival purposes.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 We take no responsibility for any damage caused by the use of this outdated work, to the extent legally possible.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] gr:owns - http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/browse_thread/thread/78079360a41aa611/7cacc208166ab535

Martin Hepp martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org
Thu Dec 9 09:32:09 CET 2010

Hi Yves,



you state that

 >OK - after taking a quick look at:

 >It looks like there is indeed a gr:owns property - but using it on an
 >artist would mean it is a 'business entity' - which I am sure many
 >artists would disagree with :-)

Note that being a gr:BusinessEntity basically just means you are a  
foaf:Agent who offers or consumes something. Every human being is thus  
a gr:BusinessEntity, and every organization. Even the pope is a  
gr:BusinessEntity in the sense of GoodRelations, as far as he is a  
human being. Even marsmen or animals sufficiently intelligent to act  
willfully could be considered a gr:BusinessEntity-

So no musician has reason to worry about being classified as a  
gr:BusinessEntity. GoodRelations does not assume you want an amount of  
money for your offer (you can say that something is free using a  
gr:UnitPriceSpecification of zero EUR e.g.), nor that the compensation  
must be in money.

In theory, you could e.g. define a class

   foo:NonMonetaryCompensation a owl:Class .

and a property

   foo:compensation a owl:ObjectProperty ;

	rdfs:domain gr:Offering ;

	rdfs:range foo:NonMonetaryCompensation .

and then define instances like

   foo:GoodKarma a foo:NonMonetaryCompensation .

   foo:ASmile a foo:NonMonetaryCompensation .

The you can simply say

foo:Offer a gr:Offering .

	gr:includes foo:MySong ;

	gr:availableDeliveryMethods gr:DeliveryModeDirectDownload .

	foo:compensation foo:ASmile .

foo:MySong a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder, foo:Song .

	# add properties characterizing the song here

The problem with using gr:owns in your case is in the fact that  
gr:owns says that the musician owns a certain instrument, which does  
not imply anything about his ability to play it. I may own a violin as  
an investment object. Also, someone may not own a certain instrument,  
yet still be an excellent performer on that type of instrument.



More information about the goodrelations mailing list