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 <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:28:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU3RrRf2BJVCmZW5ZtZi_tcTVjvzXLVcbAnF2hB3-UCy6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Martin, I don't know if I a completely agree about going to the product
forum about this. I think I understand why you might say this, but in my
thread about the working of WebPage (http://bit.ly/1jyFN0g), Jason Douglas
said:

"That said, we probably do need a mechanism for indicating the
> "primary entity" of a webpage when there is one.  Current clients make up
> their own heuristics for this, but I think it would be better to have an
> explicit way of stating that."


But this is not the main subject of this thread. Maybe a new thread to
discuss the "primary entity" or continuation of the subject in the thread I
already started is a better place.

And just to keep it simple, I'm looking for a property to say something
like:

MedicalProcedure >associatedMedia > VideoObject, or
Product > video > VideoObject

And I'm not all that interested in what the name of this property should
be, as long as I can express the relation in this order, I'm happy. Now
CreativeWork (and it's subClasses) can express this in different ways but
no entity besides that can.

I wonder why and what can be done to fix this?



2014-05-20 8:31 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:

> Jarno:
> You are right with your observation that some schema.org-based
> functionality in major search engines depends on the notion of a "main"
> entity, and that several heuristics are in place to determine what the main
> entity is. So semantically equivalent markup will give very different
> results. However, I think this is a topic for the product forums of the
> respective search engines, e.g.
>
>
> https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!categories/webmasters/structured-data
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 20 May 2014, at 01:02, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "What is the procedure for deciding what the "main entity" of something,
> specifically a page, is?"
> >
> > Good question!
> >
> > 1] If one declares the WebPage (which is implied anyway) and links,
> let's say, a Product to it by means of @about then you get no Product Rich
> snippet.
> >
> > 2] If one declares the WebPage but doesn't link the Product on the page
> to it, then Google renders a Product Rich
> > snippet. Which for me means Google looks at other top-level entities to
> generate Rich snippets for than WebPage.
> >
> > 3] If one does not declare the WebPage (which is implied nevertheless)
> and only marks up the Product, Google renders a Rich snippets
> >
> > Now I can go on like this quite long since if I've done hundreds of
> these, with all kinds of entities, but in all of those one thing is
> consistent, the order in which entities are linked most definitely has
> influence on how entities get treated in regards to the snippets in the
> SERPs. So when I markup pages I am forced to take this into consideration,
> else I'll be without clients faster than ice melts in the sahara.
> >
> > In practice for me this means I need to markup such that the entity I
> want to be eligible for a Rich snippet is the top-level entity of a page,
> and that all the rest is 'nested' within it.
> >
> > Now as for @about, I always thought @about sets the Subject of an
> Object. So if I've got that right than:
> >
> > <body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
> >     <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product
> ">...</div>
> > </body>
> >
> > means the WebPage is the Object and the Product is it's Subject and
> probable also is the reason why this doesn't result in a Rich
> Snippet/Experience.
> >
> > Now when I look at my example of MedicalProcedure, expressing:
> >
> > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/MedicalProcedure">
> >     <span itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject">...</span>
> > </div>
> >
> > Just feels completely wrong to me, as the VideoObject isn't the subject
> of the MedicalProcedure. It's simply an extra piece of info but not it's
> subject.
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-20 0:37 GMT+02:00 Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>:
> > What is the procedure for deciding what the "main entity" of something,
> specifically a page, is? That should be made explicit by linking, using
> about, from the web page to, in this case, the MedicalProcedure. Will
> Google understand that?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Niklas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jarno van Driel <
> jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Making the 'about' relation isn't all that difficult, add an @itemid to
> the MedicalProcedure, link the VideoObject to it, and Voila:
> >
> > <div itemid="medical-procedure" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/MedicalProcedure">
> >     <span itemprop="name">Tummy Tuck</span> (<span
> itemrop="alternatename">abdominoplasty</span>)
> >     <span itemprop="video" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject">
> >         <link itemprop="about" href="medical-procedure">
> >         <link itemprop="embedURL" href="
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjC_dCvVB8s">
> >         ...
> >     </span>
> > </div>
> >
> > But if the MedicalProcedure doesn't have a property to link the
> VideoObject to it, then the end result is the the VideoObject gets treated
> as the main entity, which it's not. The Product/MedicalProcedure is.
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-19 23:10 GMT+02:00 Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Thad, if I get you right you suggest I write:
> >
> > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoObject">
> >     <meta itemprop="name" content="How to get a flat stomach? tummy tuck
> or exercise?">
> >     <span itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/MedicalProcedure">
> >         [...]
> >     </span>
> > </div>
> >
> > This makes the main-entity the VideoObject which, as a result, has
> Google render a VideoObject rich snippet.
> >
> > Yet in this case the main entity is a Product/MedicalProcedure and the
> aim is to get the Product rich snippets (which an MTE can have, as I have
> the examples for it). And therefor the main-entity can't be a VideoObject
> and has to be the Product/MedicalProcedure:
> >
> > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product
> http://schema.org/MedicalProcedure">
> >     <meta itemprop="name" content="How to get a flat stomach? tummy tuck
> or exercise?">
> >     <span itemprop="video" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject">
> >         [...]
> >     </span>
> > </div>
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-19 22:57 GMT+02:00 Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Jarno,
> >
> > It's simpler than that... just use:
> >
> > http://schema.org/about
> >
> > Someone's CreativeWork (a video somewhere out there) is ABOUT the
> subject of "abdominoplasty".
> > Where that's CreativeWork is in video form...and might or might not have
> an author, creator, and who knows...the video might even get an Award
> someday, etc. which all of those are properties of CreativeWork.
> >
> > Happy hacking!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
> wrote:
> > I wonder, if the 'itemprop-reverse' addon for Microdata gets accepted,
> would this than suffice:
> >
> >  <span itemprop-reverse="about" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject">
> >     <link itemprop="embedURL" href="
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjC_dCvVB8s">
> >     <meta itemprop="name" content="How to get a flat stomach? tummy tuck
> or exercise?">
> >     ...
> > </span>
> >
> > Because if so, than maybe we don't need to do anything at all. (thinking
> out loud, again)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:45 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> > I would not recommend using hasPart as a generic property for
> relatedness.
> >
> >
> > On 19 May 2014, at 22:38, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > It's more the other way around. So in this case I want to express the
> main entity on a page, a MedicalProcedure, has a video giving additional
> information about the procedure. Something like this:
> > >
> > > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/MedicalProcedure">
> > >     <link itemprop="sameAs" href="http://www.freebase.com/m/01_mbc">
> > >     <span itemprop="name">Tummy Tuck</span> (<span
> itemrop="alternatename">abdominoplasty</span>)
> > >     <span itemprop="description">A Tummy Tuck, or abdominoplasty, is
> the most effective way to...</span>
> > >     <span itemprop="howPerformed">In summary the Tummy Tuck procedure
> takes 3-4 hours of...</span>
> > >
> > >     <span itemprop="hasPart" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/VideoObject">
> > >         <link itemprop="embedURL" href="
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjC_dCvVB8s">
> > >         <meta itemprop="name" content="How to get a flat stomach?
> tummy tuck or exercise?">
> > >         ...
> > >     </span>
> > > </div>
> > >
> > > I started this thread by suggesting to add @video to Thing but that
> quickly evolved in the idea for a 'general' or 'related' property instead,
> and then halted.
> > >
> > > Now I have a website where many MedicalProcedure, Service and Article
> entities have additional videos about those entities, yet only Article has
> properties like @associatedMediao and @video. Both MedicalProcedure and
> Service do not have the properties to express this. Which still leaves me
> questioning what I should if I do not want the VideoObject to be main
> entity.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Thad
> > +ThadGuidry
> > Thad on LinkedIn
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 10:28:34 UTC

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