Hi Nathan, > [] a gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance , > <http://www.productontology.org/id/London> > gr:description "Condition: used." .
see http://www.productontology.org/#faq5 and http://www.productontology.org/#faq6 "Q: Why is everything a gr:ProductOrService? Isn't this wrong and dangerous? The semantics of gr:ProductOrService is basically that of a tangible or intangible object on which rights can granted or transferred, so even if social conventions tell us that rain, love, health, longevity, or sex should not be traded, they are not necessarily invalid as subclasses of gr:ProductOrService, because in some environments, it may be perfectly valid to sell rain or seek health by means of RDF and GoodRelations. Q. Your idea sucks: I can even get a class definition for those Wikipedia lemmata that make absolutely no sense as a class. First, this is not question but a statement. Second, yes, you are absolutely right: You can request a class definition for John F. Kennedy or Massachusetts in 2010. However,there is absolutely no harm in providing a nonsense class definition, unless someone uses this to annotate an object. The only classes that we filter out are those for Wikipedia disambiguation pages, since they are mostly irrelevant as classes. Our approach is grounded in the idea of Human Computation: Instead of identifying valid lemmata beforehand, we rather watch which identifiers will be used in real-world data. Again, meaningless class definitions do not harm; meaningless data may." Best Martin
