Re: VR schema proposal - need some help

Hi Aaron,

I’m not in a position to comment in detail on your VirtualRealityObject
proposal, however I would say that it does feel to me, as Vicki suggests,
as a different animal to that of other MediaObject types.

As to your question of nesting object descriptions within a
single VirtualRealityObject. As it would be a subtype of MediaObject the
*hasPart* & *isPartOf* properties would be available to capture such a
structure.

~Richard.

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 19 June 2017 at 14:55, Aaron Abbott <aaron@persuasivedata.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the feedback everyone! I am going to share you points with
> my client and will get their feedback for us to consider.
>
> Thad, I get what you are saying, but do agree with Vicki. I was thinking
> of doing what you are saying, but as Vicki states, the distinction from
> other MediaObjects is a need here. That's what led me to find you guys.
> There are tons of properties that can be shared between the different types
> of MediaObjects, however, there will be scenarios where an AudioObject or
> VideoObjects will be nested within the VirtualRealityObject. Would your
> approach facilitate this?
>
> Here's another example. Their camera takes hundreds of pictures to create
> their 3D VR scenes. In these scenes, they do give access to individual
> image frames. So this could be an example of nesting an ImageObject within
> the VirtualRealityObject. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Aaron Abbott
>
> inbound marketing consultant | marketing technologist | digital media
> remixer
> website:     https://persuasivedata.com
> let's connect:     www.linkedin.com/in/aaronabbott
> *We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams...*
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Found the altitude reference: https://developers.
>> google.com/kml/documentation/altitudemode
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 at 02:41 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> maybe also
>>>
>>> playerDevice: "HMD"
>>>
>>> or,
>>>
>>> mixedRealityCookie: "yes"
>>>
>>> (similarTo: <a href="http://www.hooli.xyz/" target="_blank" class="
>>> hidden-link"> )
>>>
>>> (being that if a HMD is on a particular URL at a space/time (location
>>> and/or time): the experience changes).
>>>
>>> I think the schema attempt was a great start, but certainly more work
>>> needs to be done.
>>>
>>> I'm also kinda sure it's not simply X:Y Coordinates, but also elevation
>>> and orientation. whilst dave's more of the expert, i have a feeling the
>>> answer to that problem might be in KML.
>>>
>>> also Re: Formats for discovery, interactions and working to identify
>>> which parts are in the web-layer (or which parts could be);
>>>
>>> The 'golden' use-case i really care about is the means in which someone
>>> can identify an object but that the object can have ACLs.
>>>
>>> EG: Facial / phonetics (vocal) / biometric Recognition of person (direct
>>> or by way of inference); as to enable availability for use for only a
>>> specified purpose; or the means to exclude use from all purposes.
>>>
>>> Some people may want privacy, others may subscribe to a dating app with
>>> specific parameters.  I think this should have graph support, and in-turn i
>>> think the work with manu is an important element to achieving that goal.
>>>
>>> The classic examples of AR/VR/MR Visions:
>>>
>>> - https://vimeo.com/166807261
>>> - https://vimeo.com/8569187
>>>
>>> which i hope may help illustrate some of the ontological functions.  I'm
>>> not sure what the standard WebAPIs might look like though?
>>>
>>> or what they'd hook into..
>>>
>>> Tim.H
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 at 02:18 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not sure I understand the recommendation to use category instead
>>>> of a new type. VirtualRealityObjects are different than other types of
>>>> media objects, so it is important to understand the distinction. While one
>>>> can go through a VR demo on a normal screen, it is a diminished experience,
>>>> just as one can listen to a movie over audio equipment, but that is not the
>>>> intended playback mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> - Vicki
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No need to create a new type, I would say, if you just want to
>>>>> classify your MediaObject or Thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have support now for categories.
>>>>> You can just simply use http://schema.org/category when you need to
>>>>> sub-classify a Thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just wanting to specify a particular type of MediaObject,
>>>>> right ?  But that VirtualRealityObject is still a MediaObject, right ?  If
>>>>> so, then just sub-classify with category.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could even get crazy (but I don't recommend it in this case) and
>>>>> do something like Military specs do and give a reduction hierarchy:
>>>>>
>>>>> type: "MediaObject"
>>>>> category: "reality>virtual"
>>>>>
>>>>> category: "Virtual Reality"
>>>>>
>>>>> -Thad
>>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>