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

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

From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:59:22 -0400
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140408135920.GA9336@denials>
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:33:22AM +0200, 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?

It's a bit of a slippery slope; "audio" will undoubtedly be next,
suggesting that we need a property that can accept any MediaObject.

And then MedicalProcedure will need to link to an associated Diet and
ExercisePlan (which are CreativeWorks). Really, "followup" having a
range limited to Text is...  pretty limiting.

So perhaps Thing just needs a property that accepts a range of
CreativeWork to provide this direction of linking? Horribly generic, I
know.

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 13:59:54 UTC

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