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

Re: VR schema proposal - need some help

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:46:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3KkAn8Do2kVFmxBTvGf_M7F3Tv_w3Vmo4cVHGw1Zjbyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Aaron Abbott <aaron@persuasivedata.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Dave Lorenzini <davelorenzini@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, public-mixedreality@w3.org, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>

Makes sense to me to have a different group of properties to support MR
(AR/VR) application.

Ie: AR logo (Bit like ico or flavicon) (denoted with a recommended formats,
types and sizes in either 2d or 3d formats).

Which may be a property under MrMediaObjects

Or something else so we don't have people complaining about patriarchal


On Thu., 29 Jun. 2017, 4:54 am Thad Guidry, <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aaron,
> OK, right in that case its still a MediaObject.
> But since this object is used in the VR industry, which is still
> developing and new formats and new containers are still being created all
> the time, we will need to surface those common properties, as Vicki says,
> into a new Type for the industry to utilize.  Just don't lose sight of how
> the Broadcasting industry also deals with containers and formats that are
> very similar in your use case, is all I am asking :)  (your VRObject might
> just be a container format that becomes an industry standard later on, and
> that's fine also)
> To answer your previous previous questions, Yes currently its fine to say
> that a particular MediaObject or VRObject can contain many parts such as
> many ImageObject's
> You can currently use hasPart which is borrowed from CreativeWork to say
> that
> {
>   "@context": "http://schema.org",
>   "@type": "MediaObject",
>   "contentUrl": "
> http://media.example.org/data/0/previews/Edinburgh_Streets.vrn",
>   "description": "VRnow scene of part of Edinburgh streets",
>   "duration": "T0M60S",
>   "encodingFormat": "VRnow",
>   "name": "Edinburgh_Streets.vrn",
>   "hasPart": [
>             {
>               "@type": "ImageObject",
>               "name": "A pic of Charlotte Square"
>             },
>             {
>               "@type": "ImageObject",
>               "name": "A pic of Princes Street"
>             }
>           ]
> }
> On the Playground at *http://tinyurl.com/y95vhwdk
> <http://tinyurl.com/y95vhwdk>*
> Your welcome Aaron !
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM Aaron Abbott <aaron@persuasivedata.com>
> wrote:
>> Thad,
>> I am meeting with my client tomorrow and will get as many answers and
>> details as possible. I will try to get one of their lead developers
>> involved on this thread as well. Thanks!
>> As far as a clump of pictures, it's not like that. The clump of images
>> are available, but the final embed is an assembled self-contained media
>> object. An similar example would be the use of a SWF from and FLA if we
>> were still doing Flash. Like I said though, let me see if I can get them to
>> jump into the discussion, and if I can get permission to expose who they
>> are.
>> Thanks for the help!
>> 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 Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Sure that's fine.  But...
>>> I'd prefer to get other industry players, not just Aaron's 1 client
>>> perspective.
>>> That's all I am saying.  This has a impact on a large domain that is
>>> already fast moving and going through rapid change.  Let's get those other
>>> companies viewpoints as well.
>>> For instance, Aaron who is the manufacturer of this particular camera
>>> they use ?
>>> Knowing if it actually produces some metadata, or at least reviewing a
>>> spec sheet from its objects can help us quite a bit.
>>> Is a clump of images for some VR usage really need to be labeled as
>>> VirtualRealityObject ?  Or is this simply a "movie" or "set of moving
>>> images" ?  That's what I am trying to surface.  Aaron is not really
>>> providing some concrete details, and I'd like to hear from other
>>> competitors in the VR industry as well for broader alignment if we are
>>> going to start broadly.  (Hello Facebook and Google!)
>>> -Thad
>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 01:47:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 June 2017 01:47:24 UTC