W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Why is the video property bound to creative work?

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:33:22 +0200
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <217C2404-53CB-4D27-A63E-378466890568@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
In general, I am supportive of this, since any entity could "have" a video.

But of course you can also model it the other way round:

http://schema.org/VideoObject
 ---> about --> Thing

This works as of now. The main problem with the current solution is that search engines seem to have a hard time honoring information in that structure. And since we have the property "image" at the level of http://schema.org/Thing, why not promote video thereto, too?


Martin


On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:11, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:

> When working on markup for a MedicalProcedure I ran into the issue of not having the 'video' property available to link an embedded video, explaining the MedicalProcedure, to the entity.
> 
> But while looking for a solution in the full list of types at schema.org I started to wonder, wouldn't the 'video' property be usefull on plenty of more types than just CreativeWork. For example a 'video' about a person, organization, product, service or MedicalProcedure is quite common, yet there's no way to link a video to any of those types.
> 
> Of course the workaround for this would be an multi-type entity as in "Product CreativeWork" but somehow that just feels wrong. Looking at how much embedded video is used, wouldn't it be better if the 'video' property moved up the chain and became part of 'Thing'?
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 08:33:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC