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

Re: VideoGame proposal

From: Jeff Mixter <jeffmixter@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:58:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC=429DsH8XUw46+92S1+eFxwEn03a6JD0CCD5bjNa3Ud9NmRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
Cc: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Aaron,

That makes sense to me.  My rational for proposing the use of PTO was that
it is based on Wikipedia.org, which already has a well developed genre
classification for video games.  Having a library information science
background, I gravitate to well know and used standards for things like
Class modeling.  This is the practice that Schema.org used when they
initially developed their model (pulling from things like FOAF, Good
Relations etc.).  Although any video game classifications that happen to
exist will probably not be ontologies, they could be a good starting point
for cherry-picking vocabulary terms that we could propose as classes or
properties.

Not being involved in the video game industry I am not familiar with domain
specific classification schemes.  Is there any such classification scheme
that is used in industry that we might be able to tap for Class
development?  I was thinking of something similar to ESRB or PEGI but for
classification rather then content ratings.  Speaking of which, it might be
worthwhile modeling content rating based on standards such as ESRB or PEGI.

Thanks,

Jeff Mixter
440-773-9079
jeffmixter@gmail.com


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jeff.  Just quickly you reminded me that I forgot, in my previous
> message, that it's probably worthwhile to consider the implications of the
> new types in the context of schema.org/PlayAction to see if there's any
> connections we should be drawing.  This came to mind in your discussion of
> Steam/BattleNet (analogous in the EA environment to Origin). One way or
> another I like where you're going with this Jeff (and I'll note that the
> inherited PlayAction property agent does indeed use Person).
>
> 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).
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jeff Mixter <jeffmixter@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I think the proposal for exploring video game modeling in Schema.org is
>> very interesting and could have very significant implications.  As Dan and
>> others pointed out, there seems to be some good general properties that
>> could be applied to higher level Classes (such as Thing).  As Aaron also
>> pointed out, there might be some subjective issues in classifying very
>> granular types of video games (such as Role Playing).  I do think that
>> granular classes are important but it might be better to defer to something
>> like Product Type Ontology for this. For example one could use a generic
>> schema:VideoGame class and associated properties to describe a game and add
>> an additional rdf type of
>> http://www.productontology.org/id/Role-playing_video_game. The problem
>> with this approach would obviously be if there are specific properties that
>> are unique to a certain sub-class of video games.  I think that mocking up
>> enough use cases could help sort out some of these issues.
>>
>> An aspect that I have been exploring/thinking about that was not directly
>> addressed in this proposal was modeling the management of video game.  This
>> could allow video game producers and more importantly service
>> supporters/content providres (such as Steam or BattleNet) to manage users
>> and the relationships they have across games.  For example Steam acts as a
>> universal online platform for disseminating games and Steam users have
>> usernames that are linked to their Steam accounts.  There are though some
>> games (available through Steam) that require separate accounts to be
>> created for online play.  It would be very interesting if there were a way
>> connect users (arguably schema:Person instances) across games and service
>> providers.  I have thought a bit about this and it could be done using
>> primarily existing classes/properties.  If there is interest, I could mock
>> up a few examples and send them out.
>>
>> This topic is very interesting to me and if there is continued interests
>> in the modeling of video games, I would jump at the opportunity to
>> contribute either ideas of data examples.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff Mixter
>> 440-773-9079
>> mixterjeff@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for this Yuliya, and for your thoughtful feedback Dan and Owen.
>>>  Some intial thoughts...
>>>
>>> Does it makes sense also to have MobileGame, as a more specific type of
>>> MobileApplication - the properties of which it would inherit?  Aside from
>>> that property inheritance, mobile games bear the same relationship to video
>>> games as mobile applications do to software applications, so it makes sense
>>> IMO to carry over that logic (e.g. [1]).
>>>
>>> OnlineGame is, I think, a little problematic insofar as the bulk of
>>> packaged video games published these days have online components to them.
>>>  For example, Battlefield 4 [2] would be classified as a VideoGame if
>>> played offline, in single-player mode, but would be classfied as an
>>> OnlineGame if played in online mode.  I'd opt for simply rolling those
>>> OnlineGame properties into VideoGame.
>>>
>>> In the spirit of both those comments and following the *Application
>>> path, if one were to drop OnlineGame because its mode-dependent, might one
>>> wish to instead to have WebGame, which is a game specifically played on a
>>> browser and - like WebApplication, often has specific requirements, like
>>> Flash support, or use of a specific browser [3].
>>>
>>> +1 to all of Dan's comments.  In particular, I like the idea of making
>>> "playModes" (or "playMode") an enumeration.  And yes, "playersNumber" is
>>> ambiguous and would almost certainly end up being confused by some with
>>> max/minNumberOfPlayer:  either of Dan's suggestions are preferable.
>>>
>>> Big +1 to Owen's suggestion to reconstitute "RolePlayingGame" simply as
>>> "Game".  On one hand what does and doesn't qualify as a "role playing" game
>>> is a highly subjective judgement.  On the other hand, as Owen points out,
>>> some of the proposed properties are applicable to broader categories of
>>> games, which would also make this type more broadly useful.
>>>
>>> As this proposal for VideoGame just barely forestalls my own (which, in
>>> light of this excellent work by Yandex, won't be forthcoming:), I can
>>> confirm that Electronic Arts - one of the world's largest video game
>>> publishers - enthusiastically supports this proposal.
>>>
>>> Aaron Bradley
>>> SEO Analyst, Electronic Arts
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ea.game.simpsons4_na
>>> [2] http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4
>>> [3] http://chrome.angrybirds.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> RolePlayingGame seems specific while at least some of the properties
>>>> (min/max players at the very least) seem common to other types of game.
>>>> Would it make more sense to simply have /Game as a creative work?
>>>>
>>>>  Owen Stephens
>>>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>>>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>>> Email: owen@ostephens.com
>>>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>>>
>>>> On 15 May 2014, at 11:48, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is proposal from Yandex (one of the schema.org sponsors).
>>>>
>>>> There are many sites dedicated to games (for example,
>>>> http://store.steampowered.com/app/244850/,
>>>> http://www.gamespot.com/eve-online/,
>>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zeptolab.ctr2.f2p.google).
>>>> They contain some specific information, for which we have no specific
>>>> classes and properties in schema.org.
>>>>
>>>> We made separate class for game as a creative work (with  complicated
>>>> rules, characters, narrative). And called it RolePlayingGame. Maybe this is
>>>> not a very good name and we will be thankful if you suggest better name for
>>>> class describing games with complicated rules, fictional characters and
>>>> specific locations.
>>>> Then VideoGame class is a child of two parents -  RolePlayingGame and
>>>> SoftwareApplication.
>>>>
>>>> We also added some additional properties to SoftwareApplication class.
>>>>
>>>> This is test build of schema.org with this proposal
>>>> http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/VideoGame
>>>> http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/RolePlayingGame
>>>> http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/OnlineGame
>>>> http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/SoftwareApplication
>>>>
>>>> In attachment you can find pdf version of this proposal
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Yuliya Tikhokhod
>>>>
>>>> Yandex
>>>>
>>>> <VideoGame.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Mixter
>> jeffmixter@gmail.com
>> 440-773-9079
>>
>
>


-- 
Jeff Mixter
jeffmixter@gmail.com
440-773-9079
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 21:58:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC