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 17:42:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbabbF9iv8RUBuGrNnFrkUQEy2St=oevveK6s3BiB3S44w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
"The type of the object of this statement would then indicate the nature of
the relatedness, e.g. a VideoObject."
Says it all for me. In my mind this makes perfect sense, does anybody have
any extra input on this from a data-consumer perspective maybe?




On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Thanks! The "related" property could also be used to link related products
> in shop applications, btw.
>
> Of course, the exact semantics of the properties is pretty broad, but we
> can leave it up to the consumers of the data to interprete it, imo.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> On 08 Apr 2014, at 17:06, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
>
> > In this particular case a having 'related' property would already
> suffice for what I'm looking to do. My issue isn't so much with having
> multiple root entities relate to each other - which indeed adds additional
> complexity and size of vocabulary - but more with the fact I can't have a
> single Product (or MedicalProcedure for that matter) express it has a video
> that adds additional info about the entity.
> >
> > But coming back to your idea for adding 'related' as a more generic
> property of Thing for exactly this type of use, amongst others, seems like
> a good idea to me. So I'm all for it.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:46 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> > I understand your point, but personally, I strongly discourage having
> inverse properties, except for very few cases. Being able to model the same
> fact from both sides using different properties adds confusion and
> increases the size of the vocabulary.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> > On 08 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Martin, that helped a lot.
> > >
> > > Now putting the discussion about how multiple 'root' entities are
> handled, by search engines and other data-consumers, aside for a moment.
> (Although it might be a nice topic for new thread), I do want to re-use you
> code for a moment to illustrate what's missing from my point of view, and
> multiple root 'entites' serves quite nicely for this.
> > >
> > > Imagine a page has 2 'root' entities which aren't linked to the
> WebPage by means of a property then I would use @itemid to have both
> entities link to each other as such:
> > >
> > > <div itemid="video-object" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject">
> > >   <link itemprop="about" href="product">
> > >
> > >   <h2>Video: <span itemprop="name">Video of the Personal SCSI
> controller in use</span></h2>
> > >   <meta itemprop="duration" content="T1M33S" />
> > >   <meta itemprop="thumbnail" content="personal-scsi-thumb.jpg" />
> > >   <object ...>
> > >     <param ...>
> > >     <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" ...>
> > >   </object>
> > >
> > >   <span itemprop="description">In this short video, we show how to use
> the controller in typical setting.</span>
> > > </div>
> > >
> > > <div itemid="product" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
> > >   <link itemprop="video" href="video-object">
> > >
> > >   <span itemprop="name">The Personal SCSI Controller by ACME
> Technology</span>
> > >   <!-- other product properties go here -->
> > > </div>
> > >
> > > In this case both entities have a global identifier which should make
> it possible to have both items link to each other. Now the VideoObject
> points to the Product by means of <link itemprop="about" href="product">
> but I can't achieve this the other way around. In an ideal world <link
> itemprop="video" href="video-object"> would achieve the same relation only
> inversed but unfortunately Product doesn't have a 'video' property.
> > >
> > > Which could be resolved by either having 'video' be part of Thing or
> having a completely new property like 'related' as you proposed. Either
> way, there's something missing right now to provide this type of
> relationship.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:42 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Jarno:
> > >
> > > Below is how I would model a product video with the current set of
> elements.
> > > In general I would suggest that if a use-case can be sufficiently
> covered with existing elements, we rather encourage search engines to
> implement support for the respective markup rather than adding redundant
> conceptual elements that are there just because search engines prefer a
> particular direction of a relationship.
> > >
> > > Example: Product with video:
> > >
> > > <div itemprop="video" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject" itemref="product">
> > >   <h2>Video: <span itemprop="name">Video of the Personal SCSI
> controller in use</span></h2>
> > >   <meta itemprop="duration" content="T1M33S" />
> > >   <meta itemprop="thumbnail" content="personal-scsi-thumb.jpg" />
> > >
> > >   <object ...>
> > >     <param ...>
> > >     <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" ...>
> > >   </object>
> > >   <span itemprop="description">In this short video, we show how to use
> the controller in typical setting.</span>
> > > </div>
> > >
> > >
> > > <div id="product">
> > >   <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/ProductModel">
> > >           <span itemprop="name">The Personal SCSI Controller by ACME
> Technology</span>
> > >           <!-- other product properties go here -->
> > >   </div>
> > > </div>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> > >
> > > Martin Hepp
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> > > =================================================================
> > > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 08 Apr 2014, at 15:10, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "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 15:43:21 UTC

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