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

My fear is that a "related" property would lead to confusion between
authors and consumers. For example, if we had a VideoObject related to
Barack Obama, does he appear in the video? Does the video discuss him? Is
it about a book he wrote?

While we can know there is a relationship, it is difficult to understand
what that relationship is.

- Vicki


Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com



On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:

> "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'?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>