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

RE: VideoGame proposal

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:05:12 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
CC: Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Message-ID: <b835f6a0f57342d580f69f1b9afdfcaf@BY2PR06MB204.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
The description of http://schema.org/Series seems too narrow:

"A TV or radio series."

There are currently two subclasses defined:

http://schema.org/RadioSeries

http://schema.org/TVSeries


If the description was relaxed, it seems like "GameSeries" and "PublicationSeries" could be added to the list of subclasses. The latter might then be a reasonable alternative for the proposed "Periodical" class.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:49 PM
> To: Aaron Bradley
> Cc: Yuliya Tikhokhod; W3C Web Schemas Task Force; Dan Scott;
> Wallis,Richard
> Subject: Re: VideoGame proposal
> 
> On 12 June 2014 21:38, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Revisions look good - I've a couple of further thoughts upon
> reviewing
> > the proposal again.
> >
> > 1.  Video game series
> >
> > The proposal lacks any mechanism for declaring a video game to be
> part
> > of a series.
> 
> Richard Wallis and I met up in London a couple weeks back, and
> discussed amongst other things the scope of the periodicals proposal.
> 
> We agreed that it was a bit of a stretch treating a blog as a
> periodical, but I wonder whether it might be a reasonable fit here. I
> don't think it does feel right, any more than blog, .... but anyway to
> recap the proposed definition ---
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-

> volume_Works#New_Type:_Periodical
> 
> "A publication in any medium issued in successive parts bearing
> numerical or chronological designations and intended, such as a
> magazine, scholarly journal, or newspaper to continue indefinitely."
> 
> Perhaps the analogy here is with books that appear in such series?
> this kind of a notion...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel_sequence#Contemporary_pressures_and_

> novel_sequences
> 
> As Wikipedia notes,
> 
> "Novel sequences, though, are now most common in genre fiction,
> particularly in science fiction and epic fantasy. The introduction of
> the preconstructed novel sequence is often attributed to E. E. Doc
> Smith, with his Lensman books. Such sequences, from contemporary
> authors, tend to be more clearly defined than earlier examples.
> Authors are now more likely to announce an overall series title, or
> write in round numbers such as 12 volumes. These characteristics are
> not those of the classical model forms, and become more like the
> 'franchises' of the film industry."
> 
> ... perhaps they could've equally said, "... of the film and game
> industries" there?
> 
> Dan
> 
> > I think this is an important concept to address, as many video games
> -
> > and especially the most popular, mass-market video games - exist as
> series.
> > Individual video games belonging to that series continue to be
> release
> > after the introduction of the original title in that series,
> sometimes
> > spanning decades.
> >
> > For example, "Battlefield 3" is a video game in the series
> "Battlefield".
> > Without a distinction between a game and series to which it belong, a
> > publisher could declare this to be a VideoGame:
> > http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3

> >
> > But without a video game series type for:
> > http://www.battlefield.com/

> > ... the publisher could only unhelpfully declare this as something
> > like WebPage, or ambiguously declare it to be a VideoGame - which it
> > is not, because while you can play "Battlefield 3" you can't play
> > "Battlefield" (the first game in the franchise was "Battlefield
> 1942").
> >
> > This is precisely how Freebase handles video games:
> > Battlefield 3 = "Video Game"
> > Battlefield = "Video Game Series"
> >
> > So...
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Suggested added type:
> > Thing > Creative Work > Series > VideoGameSeries
> >
> > Properties from VideoGameSeries
> >
> > property:  videoGame
> > Expected type:  VideoGame
> > Description:  A game in a video game series.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Suggested added property for:
> > Thing > Creative Work > Game > VideoGame
> >
> > property:  partOfSeries
> > Expected type:  Series
> > Description [revision of existing]:  The series to which this video
> > game, episode or season belongs.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Note that it might appear as though the softwareVersion property
> could
> > be used to declare the specific version of a game, but it cannot for
> a
> > couple of reasons.
> >
> > "Battlefield 3" is a video game title in the video game series
> > "Battlefield", rather than a softwareVersion of the
> > SoftwareApplication "Battlefield".  The software in question here is
> > "Battlefield 3", which can have its own versions.
> >
> > As well, video games within a series often have their own names, and
> > this additional types and additional properties provide a way of
> binding the two.
> >
> > E.g.
> >
> > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoGame">
> > <h1 itemprop="name">Plants Vs. Zombies Garden Warfare</h1> The latest
> > <span itemprop="partOfSeries" itemscope
> > itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoGameSeries"><span
> > itemprop="name">Plants Vs. Zombies</span></span> game!
> > </div>
> >
> > 2.  Video game trailers
> >
> > As a more specific type of Series, VideoGameSeries would also be able
> > to use the series property "trailer".
> >
> > Video game trailers are among the most consumed and searched-for
> media
> > associated with video games.  While being able to use this for
> > VideoGameSeries would be good, it's actually a property far more
> > useful for VideoGame itself.  Just as TVEpisode has this as a
> property
> > in addition to TVSeries, so I think it should fall under VideoGame.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Suggested added property for:
> > Thing > Creative Work > Game > VideoGame
> >
> > property:  trailer
> > Expected type:  VideoObject
> > Description [revision of existing]:  The trailer of a movie, video
> > game or tv/radio series, season, or episode.
> >
> > Aaron Bradley
> > SEO Analyst, Electronic Arts
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Yuliya Tikhokhod
> > <tilid@yandex-team.ru>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This is new version of proposal with some minor changes
> >> (statistic->characterAttribute) and additional examples
> >>
> >> 24.05.2014, 01:37, "Jeff Mixter" <jeffmixter@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> I think that the changes help a lot.  The overall structure seems to
> >> be more lightweight and fit within the current schema.org paradigm.
> >> It seems like one property that is missing is rating. If we do not
> >> want to get embroiled in picking and choosing properties that relate
> >> to specific standards, as I think Guha alluded to previously, I
> would
> >> suggest that you use the existing schema:contentRating property.  As
> >> is listed in the example, people can then list the rating system as
> >> well as the rating for example "ERSB T"
> >>
> >> I still think it would be interesting to find a lightweight way,
> >> using existing schema.org classes and properties, to connect users,
> >> the games they play and the servers/services that they use.  Again,
> I
> >> think this can probably be done with the existing schema.org
> >> vocabulary so it certainly does not need to be included in any
> >> proposal but it might be worthwhile drafting up as a sort of
> cookbook for describing video games.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If there is a very wide usage of a particular external standard,
> then
> >> of course, it makes sense for schema.org to refer to that standard.
> >> Note that I say 'wide usage' not 'consensus' (among vocabulary
> creators).
> >>
> >> The cost of bouncing webmasters between different namespaces is just
> >> too high.
> >>
> >> Guha
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:22 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> >> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Aaraon:
> >>
> >> On 15 May 2014, at 21:24, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > While I understand the rationale behind using productontology.org
> >> > URIs I come down squarely against relying upon them in any
> >> > situation where the class and/or properties in question are likely
> >> > to be widely used by a large number of webmasters.  I feel
> >> > confident in saying that potential benefits of employing
> >> > productontology.org URIs for something like the proposed platform
> property will ever remain potential because hardly anyone will employ
> it.
> >> > schema.org's better-than-anticipated success has been predicated
> >> > not only because it's easy to employ, but on the fact that it's
> >> > self-contained.  IMO, every time we punt to an external vocabulary
> >> > we're shooting ourselves in the
> >> > foot:  I can't stress this enough (and I welcome Martin Hepp's
> >> > input on this, both because I know he's had something to say about
> >> > this recently in the context of his generic property/value pair
> >> > proposal and, of course, because of his experience with
> productontology.org).
> >> My point on mechanisms for externalizing or deferring consensus is
> as
> >> follows:
> >>
> >> 1. When there exists consensus in an external standard, it is better
> >> to refer to that standard than to incorporate it into schema.org -
> e.g.
> >> currency codes, GPC classes, most enumerations.
> >>
> >> 2. When site owners are not able to easily link their data to a more
> >> standardized representation, it is better to allow them publishing
> as
> >> much "lightweight" semantics as possible than making it too costly
> >> for them to publish any data.
> >>
> >> Video game is definitely a class that should be in schema.org,
> >> whereas for
> >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Action_role-playing_game, I think
> an external mechanism is a better place.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Mixter
> >> jeffmixter@gmail.com
> >> 440-773-9079
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Юля Тихоход
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 21:05:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC