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: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 02:43:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbYM4ermM8J+4z4y30QzKyLj0mkDqnj2qhc4U7zWpKj6xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Cool, so at least most participating in this thread agree a property [with
a still to be determined property-name and description] could come in handy
to be able to express, for example, a Product has a VideoObject which
contains info about the Product.

Now how do we go from here?

I actually have a real website that needs to be marked up and where this
type of property would be marvelous to have. So sorry if I seem to be in a
hurry, but I'd like to have this yesterday.   :)


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm, that last reply from me probably confused more folks than it helped..
>
> Let's just say that I would vote "YES" to a new "about" property on Thing
> that expected another Thing with a somewhat still unclear definition of
> "Another Thing that this particular Thing is the primary subject of or
> about."
>
> (There are reasons for making it restrictive (primary subject), rather
> than loose, so that there is more clarity in its use.  Less restrictive
> properties on sub-types could handle further relationships within domain
> contexts, I would hope, later on)
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 00:44:08 UTC

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