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 18:09:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbZm45zq3Tb9hmbCCdCSm0G8qb_k69eY6x6Z1pE=ViiL3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
>
> While we can know there is a relationship, it is difficult to understand
> what that relationship is.


But doesn't that also count for a property like 'isRelatedTo' (Product). Or
for the 'about' property for that matter. If a video is 'about' Obama does
it mean that... Whatever the blanks are we don't know unless there is a
relationship to begin with. And once that relationship is established isn't
further context/info than provided by the properties of the, for example,
VideoObject?


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>wrote:

> 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'?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 16:10:33 UTC

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