My question is about adding Schema.org markup for a B2B website, wherein X is the parent company and Y is an entity of the parent company.
Since we cannot add an Organization markup to Y which is an entity, what other Schema.org markup would be applicable to Y?
I would suggest that you use Organization for Y and specifiy the relationship between X and Y using the departement property of Organization ( in Y).
https://schema.org/Organization
https://schema.org/department
To relate two Organization (or sub-types of Organization) entities, these are the possible properties (as of version 2.2):
brand
department
member / memberOf
parentOrganization / subOrganization
According to your description, parentOrganization (or the inverse subOrganization) seem to be appropriate.
Related
I'm a beginning student of category theory so the question is a little hazy. Apologies if it is too basic.
An equivalence relation induces a "symmetric category" (bad terminology?), where you can back from any arrow. The category induced by a group has a different symmetry. How are these two specifically related? Is an equivalence relation somehow an algebra, like a group, that specializes the category axioms? Is it more deeply analogous to a group in some way?
I know that a category can also be induced by a partial order - which encodes anti-symmetry rather than symmetry . Is there a corresponding algebra encoding antisymetry (like a group but encoding anti-symmetry instead)? I know a partial order itself has the algebra of a lattice.
A set with an equivalence relation is often called a setoid. Categorically, a setoid is a thin groupoid. A groupoid may be thought of as a "multi-object group" in the same way that a category is a "multi-object monoid": that is, the endomorphisms of every object in a groupoid form a group.
A partial order is a thin skeletal category (a preorder is simply a thin category). Therefore, the algebraic structure corresponding to a partial order (or preorder), in the same way that groups correspond to equivalence relations, is a monoid.
The relationship "an X is just a one-object Y" is called horizontal categorification, where for your examples we have:
X = group, Y = groupoid.
X = monoid, Y = category.
Is it possible to reference additional columns apart from the 'Code' and 'Name' columns when using a domain attribute in an entity?
E.g. A person entity has a code of '1' and a name of 'Smith' and a Gender of 'Male'
In a customer entity there is a domain value referencing the person entity which displays the following 1 {Smith}. The users would like an additional read only attribute which would copy the Gender value of 'Male' into the customer entity based on the domain value. Can this be done using out of the box MDS UI?
I know this is duplicate data and breaks normal form but for usability this would be useful. It would be the equivalent of referencing additional columns in an MS Access drop down list.
Many thanks in advance for any help
This is not possible with the standard UI. One option would be to develop a custom UI where you can handle these kind of requests.
If you want to stick with the standard product I can see a workaround but this is a bit of a "dirty" one.
You can misuse (abuse) the Name attribute of the Person entity by adding a business rule to the Person entity that generates the content of the Name attribute as a concatenation of multiple attributes. You of course need an additional attribute that serves as a place holder for the original Name. The concatenated field will then show in your customer entity.
One question that does come to mind is why a user would like/need to see the gender of a person in a customer list? As you have a separate Person entity I expect you to have multiple persons per customers. What would the gender of one person - even if it is the main contact - matter?
I have an entities Group and Person with relationships:
Group:
Group.leader -> Person (To One)
Group.looser -> Person (To One)
Group.others ->> Person (To Many)
In leader, looser and others set I could have different Person entities. Same Person could be leader in one group, looser in second and appears in others set in third group.
in Person entity I have To-Many relationship groups which should connect
Person:
Person.groups ->> Group (should be enough but warnings)
Because I can make only one inverse relationship I always
will have a warning "something should have inverse"
How to deal with relationships like this?
Or:
I have entities Cube, Plan and Line. Cube has relationships x, y, z, Plane x and y, Line just x. And I need to share some values between them, even sometimes mixed:
Cube:
Cube.x --> Value
Cube.y --> Value
Cube.z --> Value
Plane:
Cube.x --> Value
Cube.y --> Value
Line:
Cube.x --> Value
Value:
Value.counted -->> Line.x or Line.y, Plane.x, Cube.x, y, z, SomeAnotherEntity.neededValue
Apple recommend that every relationship should have an inverse. In your case, that would mean the Person entity would have three relationships:
Person.groupsLed ->> Group (to many) // "groups where this Person is leader"
Person.groupsLost ->> Group (to many) // "groups where this person is the looser"
Person.otherGroups ->> Group (to many) // "other groups with this person as a member"
which does seem rather complicated. One alternative would be to collapse the three relationships into one (for each of Person and Group) with an intermediate entity (Ranking?):
Group.rankings ->> Ranking (to many) // "the ranking of people for this group"
Person.rankings ->> Ranking (to many) // "the ranking of this person in different groups"
In each case the inverse would be to-one:
Ranking.person -> (Person) (to one) // "the person for this ranking"
Ranking.group -> (Group) (to one) // "the group for this ranking"
You can then add an attribute to the Ranking entity to indicate the leaders/loosers/other. That could be a simple string attribute rank which takes the values "leader", "looser" or "other", or an equivalent integer enum. To manage the relationship between a Group and a Person, you add or remove Ranking objects. One downside to all this is that finding the leader or looser involves filtering the rankings, but it does give you a degree of flexibility.
I want to implement Schema.org for bid announcements and I'm a bit confused since there is no available type for it.
I have the following fields associated with it:
title
date of announced
closing date and time
body (announcement content)
organization name
organization address
categories in which the announcement belongs
For call for bids, you can use Schema.org’s Demand type.
There is no property for the full text (if it’s not too complex/long, you could use the description property) or for the categories.
You can use the seeks property (with the Organization as domain) and/or the seller property (with the Demand as domain) to point to the Organization that has the demand.
Can anyone specifically differentiate when it is appropriate to use the http://schema.org/MedicalClinic versus the http://schema.org/Physician.
The schema.org defines each as:
Physician - A doctor's office
MedicalClinic - A medical clinic
The issue of contention: To my understanding a medical clinic is a medical business that consists of multiple physicians and other credentialed individuals.
However, isn't it possible for a physician to work for a medical clinic that's made up of a single physician & other professionals? In the case, one physician & other credentialed individuals, is it a clinic or an office?
Does clinic imply the act of treatment whereas office implies solely the act of diagnosis?
Can anyone clear this up for me?
From a practical point of view, after comparing both schemas:
both inherits Thing > Organization > LocalBusiness > MedicalOrganization properties
Each type properties
MedicalClinic:
availableService
medicalSpecialty
Physician
availableService
medicalSpecialty
hospitalAffiliation
So the only difference is hospitalAffiliation which is of Thing > Place > CivicStructure > Hospital type.
So if it is appropriate to fill the property hospitalAffiliation with a Hospital type use the http://schema.org/Physician, if it has no sense to use it, use the http://schema.org/MedicalClinic type.