W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2017

Re: VR schema proposal - need some help

From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:11:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOr1obHfcAMr8Y3Ez4VOZpHq+pbUC1xN_kG+jDFp4W=JgTypyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Aaron Abbott <aaron@persuasivedata.com>, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, public-mixedreality@w3.org, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Dave Lorenzini <davelorenzini@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Thad,

I agree that there are a lot of details we could get into with VR objects,
but that is true of most domains. I am not sure why VR could not be modeled
broadly and later add details, perhaps even in an extension.

- Vicki

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> I differ with others opinions simply because I know about the rabbit holes
> that will show up between Web usage and Industry usage.
>
> *TL:DR - your going to need much more than just 1 new Type.*
>
> The reason I say to just sorta "try to get by with this method for now" is
> that Schema.org is missing a lot of fundamental Types for Asset Management
> (Content Management) itself as needed by lots of industries, beyond just
> The Web model Types that we currently have and that address a different
> need entirely.  So yes, I agree that their are LOTS of Types needed for the
> long tail domains.  I am one of those folks constantly asking for more
> broader Types to be added to Schema.org to cover use cases like yours.
> However...baby steps I have found are probably best and even better is when
> we get industry experts actually involved in the process, because we
> typically get it a bit skewed sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes..
>
> Since I do know a bit about this domain, I can give you a bit of advice.
>
> There are particular terms used in the gaming, broadcasting, and
> filmmaking industry.  4 that come to mind that you actually need for your
> Asset Management use case are:
>
> *Asset* - The broadest Thing, and typically would be considered a
> subclass of our CreativeWork (in Schema.org that term Asset would be
> considered too generic and we'd probably get votes to have this as
> MediaAsset or somesuch)
> *Scene*
> *Sequence*
> *Setting*
>
> It sounds like you have a need to correlate your objects to one or many of
> those 4 industry Types.
> Long term, we'd probably want to adopt an external schema or vocabulary.
> Many of which already exist in the gaming, broadcasting, filmmaking
> industry products and tools that typically deal with it as METADATA.
> Here's just one example of that sort of product to give you an idea in the
> broadcasting industry,  http://www.avid.com/products/interplay-mam  At
> Ericsson, where I work during the day, we also have platforms that manage
> assets, handling streaming, decoding, etc https://www.ericsson.com/
> ourportfolio/media-products
>
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
Received on Monday, 19 June 2017 17:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:35 UTC