block.
>
> The time interval can be of any size - a single day, a week, a month,
> a year.
>
> In GoodRelations, you can attach validity to opening hour information,
> offers, or any pricing information.
>
> Thus, consumers of your data do not have guess on how long your
> promises will hold.
I'm a little bit stuck on how to do this for what I want. Bit of
background: I've already, previous to learning about the existence of
GoodRelations, made an opening times system for a shop to display its
opening times on its website so that the times shown always reflect
reality, rather than the usual static generic Mon-Sun opening times
display which are guaranteed to misinform people for some days of the
year when opening times differ from standard. The system has a web form
for the shop keeper to insert any differing from usual Mon-Sun opening
times -- for specific dated days. The shop keeper is required to do
this, when possible, at least 10 days in advance of the day in
question, because 10 days is the amount of time the system looks ahead
for displaying; if there's any days with differing from usual opening
times within 10 days from the current day, rather than display the
usual Mon-Sun times, it displays each dated day with its opening times
10 days into the future. So the opening times display always reflects
actual reality (assuming its kept up to date); but only for 10 days
ahead. So I want to (I think this is what I want to do, maybe it's a
bad idea? maybe there's a better way?) emit GoodRelations opening times
data using the same logic as I'm using for the display of the opening
times, that is, if in the next 10 days from the current day there's no
days which differ from standard times, emit the weekly Mon-Sun
GoodRelations opening times data. Alternatively, if and when there is
at least one day whose times differ from the standard Mon-Sun opening
times within the next 10 days from the current day, emit GR data which
contains that specific info in the way you describe in the above quoted
text.
From your description above of how to do specific times, I think I'll
be forced to give standard times (for any weekly day(s) whose times
differ from standard), specific date ranges. For an example: Say it's
now 1st of July and on the 12 of July, a Monday say, the shop has
different from standard Monday times. 12th of July is 11 days away from
the 1st of July, so on the 1st of July the standard Mon-Sun
GoodRelations data would be emitted. Now let's jump ahead a few days.
Now, on say the 5th of July, the 12th of July is within 10 days, so, so
far as Monday goes, the GoodRelations data, an English description of
it, should be this I think:
5th July to 11th July: Monday's standard opening times
12th July to 12th July: the differing from usual Monday opening times
13th July to ......... : Monday's standard opening times
My problem is what date to put in where I've put dots? In English you'd
want to say "onwards" rather than a date. The system I've made,
assuming it's being used correctly, only knows the right opening times
10 days in advance -- for sure. So, the date where the dots are, seeing
as "today" is the 5th of July, could be the 16th July. The system could
say that knowing to be correct; no danger of misinforming. But doesn't
that imply (or even state outright?) that the shop will be closed on
Mondays from the 17th of July onwards? If it does imply or state that,
then I should use a date months and months into the future maybe?, but
with every chance of emitting incorrect data, as it's highly likely
some Monday in that range, in the future, won't have its standard
times. So my question is basically, how should this be handled,
logically that is? In particular bearing in mind my system only knows
10 days ahead for sure, but does know the standard weekly times, which
generally, in a vague way, hold indefinitely.
It doesn't feel right having to give standard times date ranges. It's a
shame you can't state standard weekly times indefinitely (no date
range), and at the same time state any specific dated day's times which
over-ride standard times. That's more how standard times work. Standard
times are like default times. In the absence of any other info,
standard times are assumed; defaults to them. I don't know how flexible
the GR system is, I mean how much of its design can change, but it
seems to me for opening times it'd be far better to be able set default
weekly times, and then in addition to those, on top of those, specific
times as and when needed which over-ride the standard times. Is it
outright wrong to specify the standard weekly times, while in addition
specifying a single day's date range with times which differ from the
standard weekly times? If so, could be made to be not wrong?
Thanks, Ben.
From ben at hdbatik.co.uk Tue Oct 19 22:51:44 2010
From: ben at hdbatik.co.uk (Ben Dougall)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:51:44 +0100
Subject: [goodrelations] opening times specification
Message-ID: <6a6b611e5ad377dcce1c155ddf0d9e57@hdbatik.co.uk>
Hello,
Regarding using GoodRelations to specify opening times data. Would the
following work, or not, could anyone tell me please?
Emit from a webpage two main types of opening times blocks of data at
the same time:
1. A weekly, Mon-Sun normal opening times (as demonstrated in the
example here:
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/
GoodRelationsQuickstart#Shop.2C_Restaurant.2C_or_Store.2C_and_Opening_Ho
urs) -- that is Mon-Sun (or Mon-Sat if closed days aren't to be
specified) without any dates so to be applied indefinitely.
2. A day with a specific date range (a date range which covers just
that one day) with different to the normal opening times, using this
kind of code:
The idea being that the day's opening times specified with the specific
date range would over-ride its day's standard times. This seems the
most logical way to do it but I've yet to find out if it'd be illegal
according to GR's rules, or legal but not a good idea, or absolutely
fine, or what? I have no idea if it'd work or not. Would it?
Another question: is there a way to specify "closed"?
Thanks, Ben.
From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Mon Oct 25 16:02:42 2010
From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:02:42 +0200
Subject: [goodrelations] Fwd: [Fwd: Please allow JS access to Ontologies and
LOD]
References: <4CC2D555.9050108@webr3.org>
Message-ID:
Dear all:
I just fixed the server configurations for GoodRelations,
http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1
the Vehicle Sales Ontology,
http://purl.org/vso/ns
and the GoodRelations RDFa 1.1 Profile:
http://www.heppnetz.de/grprofile/
So all three resources should be accessible by client-side scripts now.
Personally, I think that Javascript-based scripts will allow very
useful browser extensions that built atop of GoodRelations data in the
current page.
Best wishes
Martin Hepp
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Please allow JS access to Ontologies and LOD
>
> Hi All,
>
> Currently nearly all the web of linked data is blocked from access via
> client side scripts (javascript) due to CORS [1] being implemented in
> the major browsers.
>
> Whilst this is important for all data, there are many of you reading
> this who have it in your power to expose huge chunks of the RDF on the
> web to JS clients, if you manage any of the common ontologies or
> anything in the LOD cloud diagram, please do take a few minutes from
> your day to expose the single http header needed.
>
> Long story short, to allow js clients to access our "open" data we
> need
> to add one small HTTP Response header which will allow HEAD/GET and
> POST
> requests - the header is:
> Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*"
>
> This is both XMLHttpRequest (W3C) and XDomainRequest (Microsoft)
> compatible and supported by all the major browser vendors.
>
> Instructions for common servers follow:
>
> If you're on Apache then you can send this header by simply adding the
> following line to a .htaccess file in the dir you want to expose
> (probably site-root):
> Header add Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*"
>
> For NGINX:
> add_header Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*";
> see: http://wiki.nginx.org/NginxHttpHeadersModule
>
> For IIS see:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753133(WS.10).aspx
>
> In PHP you add the following line before any output has been sent from
> the server with:
> header("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "*");
>
> For anything else you'll need to check the relevant docs I'm afraid.
>
> Best & TIA,
>
> Nathan
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/
>
>
>
From ben at hdbatik.co.uk Tue Oct 26 16:53:33 2010
From: ben at hdbatik.co.uk (Ben Dougall)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:53:33 +0100
Subject: [goodrelations] opening times specification
In-Reply-To: <6a6b611e5ad377dcce1c155ddf0d9e57@hdbatik.co.uk>
References: <6a6b611e5ad377dcce1c155ddf0d9e57@hdbatik.co.uk>
Message-ID:
I'll try using Microformats. See how I get on with that.
On 19 Oct, 2010, at 9:51 pm, Ben Dougall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Regarding using GoodRelations to specify opening times data. Would the
> following work, or not, could anyone tell me please?
>
> Emit from a webpage two main types of opening times blocks of data at
> the same time:
>
> 1. A weekly, Mon-Sun normal opening times (as demonstrated in the
> example here:
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/
> GoodRelationsQuickstart#Shop.2C_Restaurant.2C_or_Store.2C_and_Opening_H
> ours) -- that is Mon-Sun (or Mon-Sat if closed days aren't to be
> specified) without any dates so to be applied indefinitely.
>
> 2. A day with a specific date range (a date range which covers just
> that one day) with different to the normal opening times, using this
> kind of code:
> datatype="xsd:dateTime">
> datatype="xsd:dateTime">
>
> The idea being that the day's opening times specified with the
> specific date range would over-ride its day's standard times. This
> seems the most logical way to do it but I've yet to find out if it'd
> be illegal according to GR's rules, or legal but not a good idea, or
> absolutely fine, or what? I have no idea if it'd work or not. Would
> it?
>
> Another question: is there a way to specify "closed"?
>
> Thanks, Ben.
>
From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Tue Oct 26 17:04:10 2010
From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:04:10 +0200
Subject: [goodrelations] opening times specification
In-Reply-To:
References: <6a6b611e5ad377dcce1c155ddf0d9e57@hdbatik.co.uk>
Message-ID: <08881F72-A520-4C48-A684-A61FE1969221@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Hi Ben,
Please, don't. ;-) Microformats will be much less flexible than any
RDFa vocabulary.
Martin
On 26.10.2010, at 16:53, Ben Dougall wrote:
> I'll try using Microformats. See how I get on with that.
>
>
> On 19 Oct, 2010, at 9:51 pm, Ben Dougall wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Regarding using GoodRelations to specify opening times data. Would
>> the following work, or not, could anyone tell me please?
>>
>> Emit from a webpage two main types of opening times blocks of data
>> at the same time:
>>
>> 1. A weekly, Mon-Sun normal opening times (as demonstrated in the
>> example here: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsQuickstart#Shop.2C_Restaurant.2C_or_Store.2C_and_Opening_Hours)
>> -- that is Mon-Sun (or Mon-Sat if closed days aren't to be
>> specified) without any dates so to be applied indefinitely.
>>
>> 2. A day with a specific date range (a date range which covers just
>> that one day) with different to the normal opening times, using
>> this kind of code:
>> > datatype="xsd:dateTime">
>> > content="2010-10-10T23:59:59Z" datatype="xsd:dateTime">
>>
>> The idea being that the day's opening times specified with the
>> specific date range would over-ride its day's standard times. This
>> seems the most logical way to do it but I've yet to find out if
>> it'd be illegal according to GR's rules, or legal but not a good
>> idea, or absolutely fine, or what? I have no idea if it'd work or
>> not. Would it?
>>
>> Another question: is there a way to specify "closed"?
>>
>> Thanks, Ben.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> goodrelations mailing list
> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations
From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Tue Oct 26 20:23:59 2010
From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:23:59 +0200
Subject: [goodrelations] opening times specification
In-Reply-To: <6a6b611e5ad377dcce1c155ddf0d9e57@hdbatik.co.uk>
References: <6a6b611e5ad377dcce1c155ddf0d9e57@hdbatik.co.uk>
Message-ID:
Hi Ben,
see inline comments:
On 19.10.2010, at 22:51, Ben Dougall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Regarding using GoodRelations to specify opening times data. Would
> the following work, or not, could anyone tell me please?
>
> Emit from a webpage two main types of opening times blocks of data
> at the same time:
>
> 1. A weekly, Mon-Sun normal opening times (as demonstrated in the
> example here: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsQuickstart#Shop.2C_Restaurant.2C_or_Store.2C_and_Opening_Hours)
> -- that is Mon-Sun (or Mon-Sat if closed days aren't to be
> specified) without any dates so to be applied indefinitely.
1. Closed days do not need to be specified, since the type of promise
(assurance) behind an opening hour plate is usually that the shop will
be open at a certain time, not that it will be closed (you will be
surprised if the shop is closed but said to be open, but there is no
promise that the shop will ever be closed).
2. If you make a statement on opening hours without specifying the
validity, you simply don't tell any agent (human or software) when
this promise will be valid. This is better than nothing, but an agent
will have to guess whether that statement will hold on a given day.
As already explained, a rational agent will look at opening hour info
without explicit validity if no opening hour info with explicit
validity for the respective day is found. But the reliability is
lower, so if a customer has the choice between two stores, and one is
said to be open with a validity statement, it would be logical to go
to that store rather than to another one without validity info.
So it is always better to specify validity, in particular since that
is easy to achieve in dynamic Web applications.
>
> 2. A day with a specific date range (a date range which covers just
> that one day) with different to the normal opening times, using this
> kind of code:
> datatype="xsd:dateTime">
> content="2010-10-10T23:59:59Z" datatype="xsd:dateTime">
Your proposed approach should work, but again, it would be better (and
not utterly difficult) to implement explicit validity intervals,
because you can update / revoke previously published data easily - no
need to tell anybody (except for changing the lastmod attribute in
your sitemap.xml); clients and crawlers should use the latest version
of your data.
>
> The idea being that the day's opening times specified with the
> specific date range would over-ride its day's standard times. This
> seems the most logical way to do it but I've yet to find out if it'd
> be illegal according to GR's rules, or legal but not a good idea, or
> absolutely fine, or what? I have no idea if it'd work or not. Would
> it?
It's legal, yet not ideal. So if this is what you can implement now,
implement that. It will be 1000 times better than trying any other way
of exposing opening hours.
>
> Another question: is there a way to specify "closed"?
No, see the argument above.
>
> Thanks, Ben.
>
>
Best
Martin
> _______________________________________________
> goodrelations mailing list
> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations
From brian at epimorphics.com Wed Oct 27 13:50:59 2010
From: brian at epimorphics.com (Brian McBride)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:50:59 +0100
Subject: [goodrelations] Recommended practice for text description of a good
or service
Message-ID: <4CC81223.9030407@epimorphics.com>
I'm planning to the use GR ontology in describing the environmental
impact of goods and services.
When I describe a product, i.e. with ProductOrServiceModel I would like
to attach a human readable description of the product or service that
applications may display to a user. Is there a recommended practice for
this. I'm using dc:description at present.
Brian
From alex.stolz at ebusiness-unibw.org Wed Oct 27 16:04:35 2010
From: alex.stolz at ebusiness-unibw.org (Alex Stolz)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:04:35 +0200
Subject: [goodrelations] Recommended practice for text description of a
good or service
In-Reply-To: <4CC81223.9030407@epimorphics.com>
References: <4CC81223.9030407@epimorphics.com>
Message-ID: <4CC83173.7060507@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Hello Brian,
if you want to attach long textual descriptions to concepts in
GoodRelations you should use rdfs:comment. For shorter labels like for
example the product name rdfs:label is recommended.
Cheers,
Alex
On 10/27/10 1:50 PM, Brian McBride wrote:
> I'm planning to the use GR ontology in describing the environmental
> impact of goods and services.
>
> When I describe a product, i.e. with ProductOrServiceModel I would
> like to attach a human readable description of the product or service
> that applications may display to a user. Is there a recommended
> practice for this. I'm using dc:description at present.
>
> Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> goodrelations mailing list
> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations
--
Dipl.-Ing. Alex Stolz
E-Business& Web Science Research Group
Universit?t der Bundeswehr M?nchen
e-mail: alex.stolz at ebusiness-unibw.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4218
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
skype: stalsoft.com
From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Wed Oct 27 17:20:41 2010
From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:20:41 +0200
Subject: [goodrelations] Recommended practice for text description of a
good or service
In-Reply-To: <4CC83173.7060507@ebusiness-unibw.org>
References: <4CC81223.9030407@epimorphics.com>
<4CC83173.7060507@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Message-ID: <9308AD9E-657F-48D1-98E9-E1FD560C48C3@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Note that you can now also use
http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#description
This is mainly a shortcut for RDFa markup so that all basic properties
are defined in the GoodRelations namespace.
Best
Martin Hepp
On 27.10.2010, at 16:04, Alex Stolz wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> if you want to attach long textual descriptions to concepts in
> GoodRelations you should use rdfs:comment. For shorter labels like
> for example the product name rdfs:label is recommended.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
>
> On 10/27/10 1:50 PM, Brian McBride wrote:
>> I'm planning to the use GR ontology in describing the environmental
>> impact of goods and services.
>>
>> When I describe a product, i.e. with ProductOrServiceModel I would
>> like to attach a human readable description of the product or
>> service that applications may display to a user. Is there a
>> recommended practice for this. I'm using dc:description at present.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> goodrelations mailing list
>> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
>> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations
>
> --
> Dipl.-Ing. Alex Stolz
> E-Business& Web Science Research Group
> Universit?t der Bundeswehr M?nchen
>
> e-mail: alex.stolz at ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4218
> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> skype: stalsoft.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> goodrelations mailing list
> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations