Re: schema.org property proposal: socialAccount

Google+ User Id along with specific Branding for channel content are part
of the YouTube API.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/docs/channels#resource

We know that advertisers use Social Accounts to "communicate" with users in
a slightly different way than their Traditional avenues of advertising and
engagement.

Bluntly, not all onlineAccount's are socialAccounts.

I would define socialAccount as so:

"An online account or presence (not email) where users or consumers can
actively communicate with another user or organization through online
social interaction".

I would define onlineAccount as so:

"An account used to access or restrict online services"



On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd say a YouTube would definitely be considered a socialAccount (an
> *additional* social account in the context of what you've said).
>
> Which raises a related issue I previously hesitated bringing up, as I'd be
> perfectly happy to see "socialAccount" (and do add my +1 here), but - as I
> noted more than a year ago [1] - I like the property "onlineAccount" as a
> more generic version of what's being discussed here (see also further
> comments in that thread).
>
> This would relieve a coder of the burden of what does and does not
> constitute a "social" account, as opposed to some other type of account.
>
> We see this sort of fuzziness with schema.org/BlogPosting, which is
> simply a flavor of the (vastly more broadly implemented and better
> recognized) type Article, and so I think unnecessary.
>
> For example, what if I want to markup something with OpenTable account?
>  Or HPI account?  Or Starbucks account?  Or Workopolis account?  Or Github
> account?  Or eBay account?  Does simply the act of exposing an account URI
> make it "social", even if no sharing is involved?  And what about accounts
> that may be used in situations where the URI might not even be publicly
> exposed, like in conjunction with a schema.org/Action in Gmail?
>
> Of course one could have SocialAccount (here rendering it as a type) as a
> more specific type of OnlineAccount, but I'm not sure how beneficial that
> is (and replicates the sort of "BlogPosting" fuzziness I described).
>
> But, again, a really useful property even if it shakes out as
> socialAccount.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0024.html
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:
>
>> Since it's been asked to me and I couldn't come up with an answer I
>> thought I'd throw it up in here,
>> In Organization which has:
>> @url to it's webpage,
>> @socialAccount to Facebook
>> @sameAs to Freebase entry
>>
>> Which property should be used to point to a Youtube channel of the same
>> Organization? Could it possible be considered an @socialAccount?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> ~Richard
>>>
>>> On 7 Apr 2014, at 06:01, Kevin Polley <
>>> kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > Kevin
>>> >
>>> >> +1
>>> >> Martin
>>> >>
>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> martin hepp
>>> >> e-business & web science research group
>>> >> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>> >>
>>> >> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
>>> >> 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 07 Apr 2014, at 04:25, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> +1 (since last year!!)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jarno van Driel <
>>> jarno@quantumspork.nl>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> But besides the double listing, +1 from me.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> On 6 April 2014 19:12, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de> wrote:
>>> >>>> Great that we have this property.
>>> >>>> Should I move our old proposal recorded at
>>> >>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals#Brainstorming,%20Use%20Cases%20and%20Advance%20Notice
>>> >>>> to accepted solutions? This property is part of the current version
>>> of
>>> >>> the language?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ah I missed that we had a double listing - I'll tidy up the wiki. A
>>> >>> lot of people have been asking for this. It's not officially added
>>> yet
>>> >>> but I'd like to move it along as a simple useful fix...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dan
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> -Thad
>>> >>> +ThadGuidry
>>> >>> Thad on LinkedIn
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>