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

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

From: Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:06:06 +0000
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, "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: <CF697A70.6A173%laura.dawson@bowker.com>
Generic can be extremely useful and flexible, particularly if other data
elements are adding additional context.

On 4/8/14, 9:59 AM, "Dan Scott" <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:

>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 14:06:59 UTC

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