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

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

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:34:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbYTsCpBLW9YyC3hLz-eAk-0C_aZppWP4SqRk3bGtqmbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I was wondering if the @hasPart property from the "WebSchemas/Periodicals,
Articles and Multi-volume Works" proposal could be a solution to link
non-CreativeWork items to a CreativeWork and/or MediaObject?




On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:44, Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
>
> > That’s the job of any given ontology. In the book industry, we have a
> number of relationships defined already. I’m pretty sure in other media
> types those also exist, so as to communicate to vendors “this thing
> replaces that thing; this thing is derived from that thing; this thing has
> nothing to do with that thing”. That’s essential information that vendors
> (e.g. Amazon and Apple) need to have.
>
> Well, I think the question in a *Web* ontology like schema.org is to find
> a good balance between the specificity of the property/relationship types
> (or type/class alike), and the ability of publishers to employ the
> distinctions properly, which is constrained by at least
> 1. their understanding of the definition of a property (or type/class),
> 2. their existing data structures (in particular local schemas), and
> 3. the fitness of the distinction to the context of the user (e.g. what is
> a common distinction in the library context - like book copy vs. book title
> - can be harder to understand and apply for users in other contexts - like
> car model vs. actual car, service template vs. service instance etc.).
>
> So simply taking a set of relationship types from an existing standard is
> not always the best choice.
>
> It really depends on
>
> 1. whether the degree of specifity is compatible with the local schemas of
> existing databases (i.e. that site owners can populate them with ease), and
> 2. whether the consumers of data (e.g. search engines) can reconstruct the
> distinction from contextual information or other signals.
>
> If e.g. search engines can reconstruct a distinction from contextual
> information or other signals, it is not necessary to encourage publishers
> of data to spend resources on declaring the respective meta-data in mark-up.
>
> In a Web vocabulary like schema.org, we should thus focus on those
> classes/types and properties that
>
> 1. are easy to apply reliably from existing data sources by typical site
> owners and
> 2. that cannot be reconstructed with ease by a consumer of the data (*).
>
> Since adding type and structural information to Web data has costs, we
> should further center our efforts on such meta-data that
>
> 1. has a high information entropy (approximately: is useful, additional
> information) and
> 2. can be reliably provided by a large number of sites.
>
> RDF and its proponents made, IMO, the mistake that they also expected such
> meta-data explicitly in the data representation that a client can often
> reliably reconstruct from the data alone. For example, data types for
> literals like the information that the literal "ABC123" is a string or that
> "2014-04-09" is likely a date. (The former has been fixed in RDF 1.1, I
> know ;-) )
>
> Many Web ontologies on the contrary (and maybe even GoodRelations in some
> of its branches) provide conceptual distinctions that cannot be reliably
> applied by site owners, either due to fact that the distinctions require a
> deep philosophical understanding, or because the existing databases
> available for powering a Web site simply do not support the distinction.
>
> As for schema.org, I would say that as long as we are defining properties
> for a single schema.org type or a small set of types, this problem is a
> lesser issue, since the type provides context and people will more easily
> understand even distinctions (like author vs. editor for a book). But when
> we speak about properties at a more generic level, or even for Thing, we
> need to be super-careful.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Martin
>
> (*) Of course, this depends on the power of the data consumer - Google et
> al. can likely do way more with messy, partly structured data than a
> smartphone app or browser extension. One untested and undeclared working
> assumption of the Semantic Web advocates is that data on the Web can ever
> be consumed in its raw form by relatively dumb clients. I have argued
> elsewhere [1] that structured data in Web content is rather "proto-data"
> that can be turned into usable data by heavy post-processing.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0293.html
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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 18:44, Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
>
> > That’s the job of any given ontology. In the book industry, we have a
> number of relationships defined already. I’m pretty sure in other media
> types those also exist, so as to communicate to vendors “this thing
> replaces that thing; this thing is derived from that thing; this thing has
> nothing to do with that thing”. That’s essential information that vendors
> (e.g. Amazon and Apple) need to have.
> >
> > From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 11:52 AM
> > To: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
> > Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>,
> W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Why is the video property bound to creative work?
> > Resent-From: <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> > Resent-Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 11:52 AM
> >
> > 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 ofhttp://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 Monday, 19 May 2014 19:35:05 UTC

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