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

Re: VideoGame proposal

From: Jeff Mixter <jeffmixter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:37:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC=429DnYgZ7bWRn_ZaHJR=BFTiZVst6XTmzQd_PZXKJVQiM3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guha <guha@google.com>
Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
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
<http://schema.org/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.


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
Received on Friday, 23 May 2014 21:37:42 UTC

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