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

I like this very very much. It can also be used to relate books to one
another, or movies to books - ³derived from², ³adapted from², etc.

On 4/8/14, 10:20 AM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org"
<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

>What about adding a "related" property to Thing?
>
>The type of the object of this statement would then indicate the nature
>of the relatedness, e.g. a VideoObject.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Martin
>
>On 08 Apr 2014, at 16:06, Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 14:23:04 UTC