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

Re: Proposal: "associatedMedia" property for schema.org/Thing (was: Why is the video property bound to creative work?)

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:10:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaNnddyMx7_gavtjb5tfSN1_m5EjNGDuG1-suHp6PeeqrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
+1  That is fine for associatedMedia....but...web developers want more and
expect more from us ... they have consistently been asking me for:

We still will need to move the "about" property onto Thing to solve a few
more grand problems in Schema.org.

-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>


> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:28:02PM +0200, Jarno van Driel wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> Well, let's put together a formal proposal to change the domain of the
> >> associatedMedia property to Thing. The benefit is that we would cover
> >> AudioObject, DataDownload, ImageObject, MusicVideoObject, VideoObject,
> >> and any other MediaObject subclass that comes into being.
> >>
> >> The adjusted RDFS would look like:
> >>
> >> <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/associatedMedia
> ">
> >>  <span class="h" property="rdfs:label">associatedMedia</span>
> >>  <span property="rdfs:comment">The media objects that encode or
> complement this item.</span>
> >>  <span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domainIncludes" href="
> http://schema.org/Thing">Thing</a></span>
> >>  <span>Range: <a property="http://schema.org/rangeIncludes" href="
> http://schema.org/MediaObject">MediaObject</a></span>
> >> </div>
> >>
> >> Note that the rdfs:comment would no longer include the statement "This
> >> property is a synonym for encodings." This is justifiable because a)
> >> "encodings" is a deprecated term for "encoding" anyway and b) because
> >> "associated media" suggests a looser affiliation with the containing
> >> type (thus the addition of "or complement" to the comment) than
> >> "encoding" which suggests a stricter relationship and c) maintaining
> >> purely synonymous properties where one of the properties has not been
> >> superceded is not a best practice, so let's differentiate the properties
> >> according to their names.
> >>
> >> If we wanted to go further, we could deprecate the roughly duplicated
> >> (but more specific) properties by adding "supercededBy" clauses to the
> >> likes of image, audio, and video. But let's not go there; keeping the
> >> simplest things easy to do has a lot of value, and associatedMedia is
> >> most likely to be embraced by those who are seeking to express more than
> >> the simplest of structured data.
> >>
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 15:11:28 UTC

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