Extension for Real Estate

1,249 views
Skip to first unread message

Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 6, 2011, 9:18:17 AM6/6/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I'd like to extend Thing/Place to cover real estate listinings and I
wonder if anyone is already doing this, so to use a common vocabulary.
If not I would like to discuss and propose the following, anyone
interested?

As English is not my native language I would appreciate comments :)

Class:
Thing/Place/RealEstate

Properties for RealEstate:
price - Number or Text - The price of the real estate property.
priceCurrency - Text - The currency (in 3-letter ISO 4217 format) of
the real estate price.
size - Number or Text - The size of the real estate proerty.
type - Text - A text describing the real estate property type
(apartment, villa, etc)
contract - Text - A text describing the contract for the real estate
property (Sale, Rent)

I feel these are the basic info most real estate listing should have.

Any comments would be appreciated :)


skygod

unread,
Jun 6, 2011, 10:54:07 PM6/6/11
to Schema.org Discussion
Hi,

I'd be very interested in a defined RealEstate schema as well.
I've currently marked up using class : Thing/Product/Offer, however it
is limited in what can be marked up.

Regarding your suggestion for the class properties, based on my own
requirements, I would propose the following

price - Number
priceCurrency - Text ( 3-letter ISO 4217 format)
size - Number
sizeUnits - Text ( Sqf / Sqm / Sqw / Sqy / Acres / Hectares / Rai )
(Square Wah & Rai are used for Land Measurement in Thailand)
type - Text ( Apartment / House / Villa / Flat / Land / Commercial
Building )
typeStyle - Text ( Detached / Semi-Detached / Terrace )
storeys - Number
offer - Text ( Sale / Rent / Lease )
rentalPeriod - Number
rentalPeriodMin - Number
rentalPeriodUnits - Text ( day / week / month / quarter / year )

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 5:17:14 AM6/7/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
On 6 June 2011 14:18, Bryo srl <pmonte...@bryo.it> wrote:
> I'd like to extend Thing/Place to cover real estate listinings and I
> wonder if anyone is already doing this, so to use a common vocabulary.
> If not I would like to discuss and propose the following, anyone
> interested?

This raises the wider issue of how and where people can collaborate on
developing new schema, in order to avoid redundant work and
conflicting results.

It's great that you've asked for discussion, rather than steaming
ahead on your own, but a more formal system might be useful (and be
preferable to the dictat from Google/BIng/Yahoo that we've had so far)

> Properties for RealEstate:

Add a property for "Realtor" ("Estate agent in British English"),
using "Organization" (or "Person" where applicable).


On 7 June 2011 03:54, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Regarding your suggestion for the class properties, based on my own
> requirements, I would propose the following

> offer - Text ( Sale / Rent / Lease )

Make that:

offer - Text ( Sale / Rent / Lease/ Swap )

as UK public housing tenants can arrange mutual exchanges of rented property.

Also, for rented properties, add a "Deposit" value and currency-type

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 7:12:32 AM6/7/11
to Schema.org Discussion
On Jun 7, 4:54 am, skygod <skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd be very interested in a defined RealEstate schema as well.
> I've currently marked up using class : Thing/Product/Offer, however it
> is limited in what can be marked up.
It would be a good starting point to try and decide which class to use
and extend.
I had evaluated Thing/Product/Offer but it had many properties useless
(or not so important) for real estate (aggregateRating, availability,
itemCondition, priceValidUntil, reviews) and more important it miss
two usueful one that are present in Thing/Place (address, geo).
What do you think?
Which of the two could work better? Or should we extend "Thing"
directly adding Geo and Address too?

> Regarding your suggestion for the class properties, based on my own
> requirements, I would propose the following
Good catch of sizeunit, I agree. I would suggest to stay a bit more
generic and include those properties that are needed in 90% of cases.
If we go deeper there are tons of them (even more if we consider
culture related ones): has carpark? furniture? portier? etc etc etc
For this reason I would avoid storyes and the three rentals. I would
also join type with typestyle so that type can be semi-attached
apartment without the need to spli this in two properties.

So properties could be:
price - Number or Text - The price of the real estate property.
priceCurrency - Text - The currency (in 3-letter ISO 4217 format) of
the real estate price.
size - Number or Text - The size of the real estate proerty.
sizeUnit - Text - The unit used for the real estate size (sqm, acres,
etc)
type - Text - A text describing the real estate property type (flat,
land, semi-detached apartment, etc)
offer - Text - A text describing the contract for the real estate
property (sale, rent, lease, swap)

What do you think?

Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 7:16:43 AM6/7/11
to Schema.org Discussion
On Jun 7, 11:17 am, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 14:18, Bryo srl <pmontelat...@bryo.it> wrote:
>
> This raises the wider issue of how and where people can collaborate on
> developing new schema, in order to avoid redundant work and
> conflicting results.
>
> It's great that you've asked for discussion, rather than steaming
> ahead on your own, but a more formal system might be useful (and be
> preferable to the dictat from Google/BIng/Yahoo that we've had so far)
I agree, 100%.

> > Properties for RealEstate:
>
> Add a property for "Realtor" ("Estate agent in British English"),
> using "Organization" (or "Person" where applicable).
Good suggestion, I agree. I would add
realtor - RealEstateAgent or Person - the person or organization in
charge to offer the real estate property
where RealEstateAgent is Thing > Organization > LocalBusiness >
RealEstateAgent

> Also, for rented properties, add a "Deposit"  value and currency-type
For the above mentioned reason, I would suggest to include those
properties used in 90% of cases, deposit sounds a bit too "deep" to
me. I would be already very happy to get to the point where few people
here agree to a class with just the main properties :)

Ryan Donahue

unread,
Jun 7, 2011, 7:40:23 AM6/7/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
It strikes me this may best be solved by extending product as Thing/Product/RealEstate with an added property of type place to get that info over.

Sent from my iPhone

skygod

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 5:00:03 AM6/8/11
to Schema.org Discussion
Ploughing through the schema.org documentation, I noticed that
CreativeWork allows for Place and Offer and as Product can be a child
of Offer, this may be a way of getting the core components recognized
by the main schema.

The issue is then to build an extension purely for RealEstate.
Initially this could simply be a child of CreativeWork rather than
Product or Place and if used by Realtors in the field would maybe be
adopted by schema.org some time in the future.


Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 8, 2011, 3:59:49 AM6/8/11
to Schema.org Discussion
Hello and thanks for your contribution.

So now we have three proposal for the class to extend:
1. Thing/Place
2. Thing/Product/Offer
3. Thing/Product

Other suggestions? Comments? Votes?

skygod

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 1:05:24 AM6/9/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I guess that until we can use a real testing / validation tool it's
going to be a bit hit and miss to start with. I was playing around
with the markup yesterday and created a simple layout using
CreativeWork as the base Class and defining a RealEstate extension
under Offer.

The Rich Snippet testing tool shows the following for
http://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.php shows the following
output :

Item
Type: http://schema.org/creativework
name = Condominium for Sale in Someplace
image = http://skygod-webservices.co.cc/picture.jpg
description = A beautiful 132 sqm 1 bedroom unit in Someplace Condotel
offers = Item( 1 )
contentlocation = Item( 4 )

Item 1
Type: http://schema.org/offer
price = 1200000
pricecurrency = THB
offers = Item( 2 )
availability = InStock
seller = Item( 3 )

Item 2
Type: http://schema.org/offer/realestate
propertysize = 132
propertyunits = sqm
propertytype = Condominium
propertyoffer = Sale

Item 3
Type: http://schema.org/organization
name = ACME Realty
email = someone@acme_realty.com

Item 4
Type: http://schema.org/place
geo = Item( 5 )

Item 5
Type: http://schema.org/geocordinates
latitude = 17.208004
longitude = 101.857703

ashok....@logixworld.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 6:15:47 PM6/9/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
I have created a group http://groups.google.com/group/real-estate-extension-for-schemaorg specifically for this purpose (if subgroups could be created, that would have been ideal). All the people interested in defining this extension can join the group. We can carry out the discussion in that group and avoid the clutter of several other discussions that are bound to happen on the main group.

ashok....@logixworld.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 6:29:41 PM6/9/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
What about Thing/Place/LocalBusiness AND Thing/Product/Offer ?
In the Data Model, they have mentioned
1. We have a set of types, arranged in a multiple inheritance heirarchy where each type may be a sub class of multiple types.

ashok....@logixworld.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 6:34:08 PM6/9/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
If we use 'type' to represent Villa, Apartment etc. what can we use to represent Residential, Commercial, Industrial etc.?

Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 1:59:29 AM6/10/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I agree subgroup would work while I feel that a new group would be
much more difficult to be found to others looking for this subject and
willing to partecipate. I would suggest to stay in this thread.

On Jun 10, 12:15 am, "ashok.pad...@logixworld.com"
<ashok.pad...@logixworld.com> wrote:
> I have created a grouphttp://groups.google.com/group/*
> real-estate-extension-for-schemaorg*<http://groups.google.com/group/real-estate-extension-for-schemaorg> specifically

Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 2:03:20 AM6/10/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I would suggest genericType. Sounds ok?

On Jun 10, 12:34 am, "ashok.pad...@logixworld.com"

ashok....@logixworld.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 2:55:08 AM6/10/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
Sounds good to me

Bryo srl

unread,
Jun 16, 2011, 5:12:46 AM6/16/11
to Schema.org Discussion
Ciao skygod, finally I had time to look into your suggestions and
progresses, good job!

I agree with you, CreativeWork is the only class that offer both a
http://schema.org/Offer and a http://schema.org/Place properties
("offers" and "contentLocation" in this case). So using it instead of
extending a more basic class could help serach engine understand at
least some of the data. My doubt is: CreativeWork ?? :( Unfortuantely
it sounds a bit strange to insert a real estate property in
CreativeWork, for sure a building is not a CreativeWork. What do you
think? Is this important? I mean, it is important to markup objects
(the buidling in our case) with the correct "class meaning"?

Second point: I saw that you have inserted "offers" as a new property
of http://schema.org/Offer (your item 1). Can we do something like
that? Is this a correct way to extend a property/class? Reading
http://schema.org/docs/extension.html I read something different but
maybe I'm wrong. I understood that you could extend a class or a
property but not insert a new property on an existing class.

Third and last comment: I would like to use http://schema.org/RealEstateAgent
for Type of Item 3 instead of the more generic http://schema.org/organization
but, again, I do not know if this can be done. Can we use
http://schema.org/RealEstateAgent (that is a subclass of
http://schema.org/Organization) as value for a property that ask for
http://schema.org/Organization ? Can subclasses be used instead of the
class?

Maybe we should open a new thread about this last two points.




On Jun 9, 7:05 am, skygod <skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I guess that until we can use arealtesting / validation tool it's
> going to be a bit hit and miss to start with. I was playing around
> with the markup yesterday and created a simple layout using
> CreativeWork as the base Class and defining a RealEstate extension
> under Offer.
>
> The Rich Snippet testing tool shows the following forhttp://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.phpshows the following
> output :
>
> Item
> Type:http://schema.org/creativework
> name = Condominium for Sale in Someplace
> image =http://skygod-webservices.co.cc/picture.jpg

Jesse F

unread,
Jul 6, 2011, 10:47:03 PM7/6/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I'm new at this so forgive me if Im missing something. The whole idea
of this is to be as logical as possible and starting off as a creative
work seems wrong. I would think search engine-wise, they will be
looking at the top level first and organizationally real estate would
probably not fall under creative work. It should start on http://schema.org/Place
or one of its subcategories, correct? And I would think that there
should be custom properties added underneath such as beds, baths,
price, etc.

On Jun 16, 5:12 am, Bryo srl <b...@bryo.it> wrote:
> Ciao skygod, finally I had time to look into your suggestions and
> progresses, good job!
>
> I agree with you, CreativeWork is the only class that offer both ahttp://schema.org/Offerand ahttp://schema.org/Placeproperties
> ("offers" and "contentLocation" in this case). So using it instead of
> extending a more basic class could help serach engine understand at
> least some of the data. My doubt is: CreativeWork ?? :( Unfortuantely
> it sounds a bit strange to insert a real estate property in
> CreativeWork, for sure a building is not a CreativeWork. What do you
> think? Is this important? I mean, it is important to markup objects
> (the buidling in our case) with the correct "class meaning"?
>
> Second point: I saw that you have inserted "offers" as a new property
> of  http://schema.org/Offer(your item 1). Can we do something like
> that? Is this a correct way to extend a property/class? Readinghttp://schema.org/docs/extension.htmlI read something different but
> maybe I'm wrong. I understood that you could extend a class or a
> property but not insert a new property on an existing class.
>
> Third and last comment: I would like to usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent
> for Type of Item 3 instead of the more generichttp://schema.org/organization
> but, again, I do not know if this can be done. Can we usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent(that is a subclass ofhttp://schema.org/Organization) as value for a property that ask forhttp://schema.org/Organization? Can subclasses be used instead of the
> class?
>
> Maybe we should open a new thread about this last two points.
>
> On Jun 9, 7:05 am, skygod <skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I guess that until we can use arealtesting / validation tool it's
> > going to be a bit hit and miss to start with. I was playing around
> > with the markup yesterday and created a simple layout using
> > CreativeWork as the base Class and defining a RealEstate extension
> > under Offer.
>
> > The Rich Snippet testing tool shows the following forhttp://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.phpshowsthe following

Jesse F

unread,
Jul 6, 2011, 11:08:35 PM7/6/11
to Schema.org Discussion
Would it not be better to use /Place as the top level as opposed to /
CreativeWork? The engines will be looking at this for organizational
structure and I dont see them looking for real estate in creative
work. I would think it would be better to add extensions to the /Place
properties such as beds, baths, price - right?

On Jun 16, 5:12 am, Bryo srl <b...@bryo.it> wrote:
> Ciao skygod, finally I had time to look into your suggestions and
> progresses, good job!
>
> I agree with you, CreativeWork is the only class that offer both ahttp://schema.org/Offerand ahttp://schema.org/Placeproperties
> ("offers" and "contentLocation" in this case). So using it instead of
> extending a more basic class could help serach engine understand at
> least some of the data. My doubt is: CreativeWork ?? :( Unfortuantely
> it sounds a bit strange to insert arealestateproperty in
> CreativeWork, for sure a building is not a CreativeWork. What do you
> think? Is this important? I mean, it is important to markup objects
> (the buidling in our case) with the correct "class meaning"?
>
> Second point: I saw that you have inserted "offers" as a new property
> of  http://schema.org/Offer(your item 1). Can we do something like
> that? Is this a correct way to extend a property/class? Readinghttp://schema.org/docs/extension.htmlI read something different but
> maybe I'm wrong. I understood that you could extend a class or a
> property but not insert a new property on an existing class.
>
> Third and last comment: I would like to usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent
> for Type of Item 3 instead of the more generichttp://schema.org/organization
> but, again, I do not know if this can be done. Can we usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent(that is a subclass ofhttp://schema.org/Organization) as value for a property that ask forhttp://schema.org/Organization? Can subclasses be used instead of the
> class?
>
> Maybe we should open a new thread about this last two points.
>
> On Jun 9, 7:05 am, skygod <skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I guess that until we can use arealtesting / validation tool it's
> > going to be a bit hit and miss to start with. I was playing around
> > with the markup yesterday and created a simple layout using
> > CreativeWork as the base Class and defining a RealEstate extension
> > under Offer.
>
> > The Rich Snippet testing tool shows the following forhttp://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.phpshowsthe following

skygod

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 12:13:11 PM7/11/11
to Schema.org Discussion
I fully agree that /Place or possibly /Product would be the natural
top level for Real Estate, but by using /Place, it's then not possible
to implement either /Offer or /Product as these are not child
elements. The only top level that I've found that allows /Product and /
Place is by using /CreativeWork as the parent 'holder'.

I know that a generic property is NOT a /CreativeWork, but how is it
possible to implement location data, business data and product / offer
data using any other markup?

I just feel that we are on the cusp of getting something really good
here and the impetus is not there :-(

I've looked at hundreds of Real estate sites and by and large there
are only a few standards that would need to be applied which I've
previously attempted to provide input on, but it is up to schema.org
to assist us. The current framework just doesn't work in a meaningful
way.

Please, Google / Bing & Yahoo help us out here. Real Estate is a
popular search query and getting data portrayed in a consistent manner
will certainly help searchers if the major search engines can
understand what is being Offered in what Place and by who
(LocalBusiness).

I have agreement from one of the sites that I support to make the
transition to html5 (experimental) for their detailed listings page if
I can guarantee that the semantic markup is correct.

Without having live sites adopt schema.org markup correctly, where is
this initiative going?

George


On Jul 7, 10:08 am, Jesse F <cobbsfried...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would it not be better to use /Place as the top level as opposed to /
> CreativeWork? The engines will be looking at this for organizational
> structure and I dont see them looking for real estate in creative
> work. I would think it would be better to add extensions to the /Place
> properties such as beds, baths, price - right?
>
> On Jun 16, 5:12 am, Bryo srl <b...@bryo.it> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ciao skygod, finally I had time to look into your suggestions and
> > progresses, good job!
>
> > I agree with you, CreativeWork is the only class that offer both ahttp://schema.org/Offerandahttp://schema.org/Placeproperties
> > ("offers" and "contentLocation" in this case). So using it instead of
> > extending a more basic class could help serach engine understand at
> > least some of the data. My doubt is: CreativeWork ?? :( Unfortuantely
> > it sounds a bit strange to insert arealestateproperty in
> > CreativeWork, for sure a building is not a CreativeWork. What do you
> > think? Is this important? I mean, it is important to markup objects
> > (the buidling in our case) with the correct "class meaning"?
>
> > Second point: I saw that you have inserted "offers" as a new property
> > of  http://schema.org/Offer(youritem 1). Can we do something like
> > that? Is this a correct way to extend a property/class? Readinghttp://schema.org/docs/extension.htmlIread something different but
> > maybe I'm wrong. I understood that you could extend a class or a
> > property but not insert a new property on an existing class.
>
> > Third and last comment: I would like to usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent
> > for Type of Item 3 instead of the more generichttp://schema.org/organization
> > but, again, I do not know if this can be done. Can we usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent(thatis a subclass ofhttp://schema.org/Organization) as value for a property that ask forhttp://schema.org/Organization?Can subclasses be used instead of the

skygod

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 12:18:34 PM7/11/11
to Schema.org Discussion
http://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.php no longer exists, it
is now

http://skygod-webservices.co.tv/schema_test.php


I would really welcome feedback on the validity of this markup, as the
current testing tools provide little help.

Guha

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 5:11:37 PM7/12/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
Isn't a Real Estate Listing a subClass of Offer?

guha

Dzonatas Sol

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 5:49:35 PM7/12/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
Depends if people want to type, like: real.eState.closet.ORG.

I see why JVM switched from Java to javaScript: subORG.

K&R C format would consider that one complilation than one subClass of
su-borg.

Consider the weight attribute for items.

On 07/12/2011 02:11 PM, Guha wrote:
> Isn't a Real Estate Listing a subClass of Offer?
>
> guha
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM, skygod <skygo...@hotmail.co.uk
> <mailto:skygo...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> I fully agree that /Place or possibly /Product would be the natural
> top level for Real Estate, but by using /Place, it's then not possible
> to implement either /Offer or /Product as these are not child
> elements. The only top level that I've found that allows /Product
> and /
> Place is by using /CreativeWork as the parent 'holder'.
>
> I know that a generic property is NOT a /CreativeWork, but how is it
> possible to implement location data, business data and product / offer
> data using any other markup?
>
> I just feel that we are on the cusp of getting something really good
> here and the impetus is not there :-(
>
> I've looked at hundreds of Real estate sites and by and large there
> are only a few standards that would need to be applied which I've
> previously attempted to provide input on, but it is up to

> schema.org <http://schema.org>


> to assist us. The current framework just doesn't work in a meaningful
> way.
>
> Please, �Google / Bing & Yahoo help us out here. Real Estate is a
> popular search query and getting data portrayed in a consistent manner
> will certainly help searchers if the major search engines can
> understand what is being Offered in what Place and by who
> (LocalBusiness).
>
> I have agreement from one of the sites that I support to make the
> transition to html5 (experimental) for their detailed listings page if
> I can guarantee that the semantic markup is correct.
>

> Without having live sites adopt schema.org <http://schema.org>


> markup correctly, where is
> this initiative going?
>
> George
>
>
> On Jul 7, 10:08�am, Jesse F <cobbsfried...@gmail.com

> <mailto:cobbsfried...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Would it not be better to use /Place as the top level as opposed
> to /
> > CreativeWork? The engines will be looking at this for organizational
> > structure and I dont see them looking for real estate in creative
> > work. I would think it would be better to add extensions to the
> /Place
> > properties such as beds, baths, price - right?
> >
> > On Jun 16, 5:12�am, Bryo srl <b...@bryo.it

> <mailto:b...@bryo.it>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ciao skygod, finally I had time to look into your suggestions and
> > > progresses, good job!
> >
> > > I agree with you, CreativeWork is the only class that offer
> both ahttp://schema.org/Offerandahttp://schema.org/Placeproperties
> <http://schema.org/Offerandahttp://schema.org/Placeproperties>
> > > ("offers" and "contentLocation" in this case). So using it
> instead of
> > > extending a more basic class could help serach engine
> understand at
> > > least some of the data. My doubt is: CreativeWork ?? :(
> Unfortuantely
> > > it sounds a bit strange to insert arealestateproperty in
> > > CreativeWork, for sure a building is not a CreativeWork. What
> do you
> > > think? Is this important? I mean, it is important to markup
> objects
> > > (the buidling in our case) with the correct "class meaning"?
> >
> > > Second point: I saw that you have inserted "offers" as a new
> property
> > > of �http://schema.org/Offer(youritem

> <http://schema.org/Offer%28youritem> 1). Can we do something like


> > > that? Is this a correct way to extend a property/class?
> Readinghttp://schema.org/docs/extension.htmlIread
> <http://schema.org/docs/extension.htmlIread> something different but
> > > maybe I'm wrong. I understood that you could extend a class or a
> > > property but not insert a new property on an existing class.
> >
> > > Third and last comment: I would like to
> usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent
> <http://schema.org/RealEstateAgent>
> > > for Type of Item 3 instead of the more

> generichttp://schema.org/organization <http://schema.org/organization>


> > > but, again, I do not know if this can be done. Can we
> usehttp://schema.org/RealEstateAgent(thatis

> <http://schema.org/RealEstateAgent%28thatis> a subclass
> ofhttp://schema.org/Organization <http://schema.org/Organization>)


> as value for a property that ask
> forhttp://schema.org/Organization?Can
> <http://schema.org/Organization?Can> subclasses be used instead of the
> > > class?
> >
> > > Maybe we should open a new thread about this last two points.
> >
> > > On Jun 9, 7:05�am, skygod <skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk

> <mailto:skygod12...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess that until we can use arealtesting / validation tool
> it's
> > > > going to be a bit hit and miss to start with. I was playing
> around
> > > > with the markup yesterday and created a simple layout using
> > > > CreativeWork as the base Class and defining a RealEstate
> extension
> > > > under Offer.
> >
> > > > The Rich Snippet testing tool shows the following

> forhttp://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.phpshowsthefollowing <http://skygod-webservices.co.cc/schema_test.phpshowsthefollowing>

> > > > email = someone@acme_realty.com <mailto:someone@acme_realty.com>


> >
> > > > Item 4
> > > > Type:http://schema.org/place
> > > > geo = Item( 5 )
> >
> > > > Item 5
> > > > Type:http://schema.org/geocordinates
> > > > latitude = 17.208004
> > > > longitude = 101.857703
>
>


--
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant

Martin Hepp

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 2:22:29 AM7/13/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
I would suggest to follow the same conceptual structure as in GoodRelations, i.e., classify the nature of an offer solely by the products or services it includes, so a Real Estate Listing is simply an http://schema.org/Offer (and in parallel a http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Offering).

The link to the place via itemOffered.

Martin

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail: he...@ebusiness-unibw.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
twitter: mfhepp


skygod

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 12:51:45 AM7/16/11
to Schema.org Discussion
Guha,

The problem with simply using 'Offer' for RealEstate is that there is
no straightforward method to include important information regarding
the physical location of the individual realestate listing.

When searching for a property, I think it's highly likely that the
location is used in the search query such as "Houses for Rent near
Mountain View California"

The only top level class that I have found that allows inclusion of
subclasses of 'Offer' and 'Place' is 'CreativeWork', however I do not
believe that to be an appropriate category to use.

In http://www.schema.org/Offer, would it not be possible to have a
Property : location with Expected Type : Place as this would then
allow GeoCoordinates and PostalAddress to be implemented so that other
more generic Offers can be better tailored such as "Red Widgets for
Sale in London England" ?

Guha

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 6:10:36 PM7/18/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
The item being offered is the place, which can have all attributes required, like address, etc.

guha

skygod

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 9:43:31 PM7/18/11
to Schema.org Discussion
So, instead of

Property Expected Type Description
itemOffered Product The item being sold.

it is acceptable to sustitute

Property Expected Type Description
itemOffered Place The item being sold.

Guha

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 9:57:32 PM7/18/11
to schemaorg-...@googlegroups.com
Yes, we already allow for multiple values for range.

itemOffered should be allowed to have (instances of) Place in addition to Product as its value.

guha
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages