- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:00:12 +0100
- To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "schema-org-team@googlegroups.com" <schema-org-team@googlegroups.com>
On 15 October 2014 19:28, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm confused. I agree with Thad "that 'part' and 'partOf' would be ideal > for VideoGameSeries" - except for the fact that the example does not employ > VideoGameSeries (unlike the query to which Thad points) and indeed > VideoGameSeries "has been discarded because it's not enough informative." > > So before I comment further, Yuliya can you clarify that your example was > not meant to include VideoGameSeries It's 10.47pm in Moscow so I'll take the liberty of trying to reply for Yuliya, or at least rephrasing my reading of her post - "I've analyzed schema.org and few sites with VideoGames and find three ways of representation series of video game: " = "3 different options for addressing requests for representing video games series:" option 1.) with new type VideoGameSeries (from Series), option 2.) with new property and option 3.) using existing property 'hasPart'. Conclusions: "The first (option 1.) has been discarded because Series has many properties quite inappropriate for video game. " = Series was added for generalizing TV Series when we added Radio Series; but it doesn't apply to all kinds of series, and isn't a good supertype for VideoGameSeries. "Second one has been discarded because it's not enough informative." = adding a new property for this is hard to justify and doesn't add much value This then leaves us with use of hasPart/isPartOf between VideoGame instances. This is similar to the way we do things with other creative works... We should also add an example showing how to associate a VideoGame with a http://schema.org/VideoObject using 'about', and address the various little formatting issues Aaron just brought up as I was posting this. But otherwise I think we're getting there. The options above do leave out the possibility of putting in VideoGameSeries as a type with a different supertype than Series, but that seems to be storing up confusion for the future. Using isPartOf and hasPart covers a lot of ground and gets something out there - we can always add more terms later. cheers, Dan
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 19:00:39 UTC