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

Generic can be extremely useful and flexible, particularly if other data
elements are adding additional context.

On 4/8/14, 9:59 AM, "Dan Scott" <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:33:22AM +0200, 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?
>
>It's a bit of a slippery slope; "audio" will undoubtedly be next,
>suggesting that we need a property that can accept any MediaObject.
>
>And then MedicalProcedure will need to link to an associated Diet and
>ExercisePlan (which are CreativeWorks). Really, "followup" having a
>range limited to Text is...  pretty limiting.
>
>So perhaps Thing just needs a property that accepts a range of
>CreativeWork to provide this direction of linking? Horribly generic, I
>know.
>
>Dan
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 14:06:59 UTC