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

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

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:10:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbbAW2i1xZafwqeCTKWNepkCxYw+yP-3pOoqCkjiX4JruA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
"Conceptually, this is not true, since you can use itemref in Microdata..."

Would you be so kind to provide a small markup example, that illustrates
this. I think I understand what you mean but unfotunately without an
example I'm not sure if I understand you correctly.
Op 8 apr. 2014 14:20 schreef "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:

> Conceptually, this is not true, since you can use itemref in Microdata or
> a unique identifier in RDFa to make the video the outer entitity in the
> nesting.
> However, search engines have, in practice, two problems with this:
>
> 1. Rich snippets and similar techniques often depend on finding one main
> entity type, and use the outermost entities (root entities) in the syntax
> for that task. So a Web page with a VideoObject and an Offer nested therein
> may not trigger a product snippet because the search engine thinks it was
> mainly a page about a video.
>
> 2. The linkage between entities on the basis of identifiers in RDFa is, to
> my experience, not properly supported by major search engines, so in
> reality, my proposed pattern will only work in Microdata.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 08 Apr 2014, at 13:01, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
>
> > But of course you can also model it the other way round...
> >
> > True but only in cases where VideoObject is the main object. When the
> main object is something else, which isn't part of the CreativeWork branch,
> then there is no way to link a video by means of a 'video' property.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> > 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 13:11:31 UTC

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