Re: Why is the video property bound to creative work?

>
> But of course you can also model it the other way round...


True but only in cases where VideoObject is the main object. When the main
object is something else, which isn't part of the CreativeWork branch, then
there is no way to link a video by means of a 'video' property.


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> In general, I am supportive of this, since any entity could "have" a video.
>
> But of course you can also model it the other way round:
>
> http://schema.org/VideoObject
>  ---> about --> Thing
>
> This works as of now. The main problem with the current solution is that
> search engines seem to have a hard time honoring information in that
> structure. And since we have the property "image" at the level of
> http://schema.org/Thing, why not promote video thereto, too?
>
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:11, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
>
> > When working on markup for a MedicalProcedure I ran into the issue of
> not having the 'video' property available to link an embedded video,
> explaining the MedicalProcedure, to the entity.
> >
> > But while looking for a solution in the full list of types at schema.orgI started to wonder, wouldn't the 'video' property be usefull on plenty of
> more types than just CreativeWork. For example a 'video' about a person,
> organization, product, service or MedicalProcedure is quite common, yet
> there's no way to link a video to any of those types.
> >
> > Of course the workaround for this would be an multi-type entity as in
> "Product CreativeWork" but somehow that just feels wrong. Looking at how
> much embedded video is used, wouldn't it be better if the 'video' property
> moved up the chain and became part of 'Thing'?
>
>