- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:06:43 +0200
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFQgrbaHM55_RZgUZ_atcjd7pLtgo5wM7CD2skD9JCf__zZnoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In this particular case a having 'related' property would already suffice for what I'm looking to do. My issue isn't so much with having multiple root entities relate to each other - which indeed adds additional complexity and size of vocabulary - but more with the fact I can't have a single Product (or MedicalProcedure for that matter) express it has a video that adds additional info about the entity. But coming back to your idea for adding 'related' as a more generic property of Thing for exactly this type of use, amongst others, seems like a good idea to me. So I'm all for it. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:46 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org < martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > I understand your point, but personally, I strongly discourage having > inverse properties, except for very few cases. Being able to model the same > fact from both sides using different properties adds confusion and > increases the size of the vocabulary. > > Martin > > > > On 08 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote: > > > Thanks Martin, that helped a lot. > > > > Now putting the discussion about how multiple 'root' entities are > handled, by search engines and other data-consumers, aside for a moment. > (Although it might be a nice topic for new thread), I do want to re-use you > code for a moment to illustrate what's missing from my point of view, and > multiple root 'entites' serves quite nicely for this. > > > > Imagine a page has 2 'root' entities which aren't linked to the WebPage > by means of a property then I would use @itemid to have both entities link > to each other as such: > > > > <div itemid="video-object" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/VideoObject"> > > <link itemprop="about" href="product"> > > > > <h2>Video: <span itemprop="name">Video of the Personal SCSI controller > in use</span></h2> > > <meta itemprop="duration" content="T1M33S" /> > > <meta itemprop="thumbnail" content="personal-scsi-thumb.jpg" /> > > <object ...> > > <param ...> > > <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" ...> > > </object> > > > > <span itemprop="description">In this short video, we show how to use > the controller in typical setting.</span> > > </div> > > > > <div itemid="product" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"> > > <link itemprop="video" href="video-object"> > > > > <span itemprop="name">The Personal SCSI Controller by ACME > Technology</span> > > <!-- other product properties go here --> > > </div> > > > > In this case both entities have a global identifier which should make it > possible to have both items link to each other. Now the VideoObject points > to the Product by means of <link itemprop="about" href="product"> but I > can't achieve this the other way around. In an ideal world <link > itemprop="video" href="video-object"> would achieve the same relation only > inversed but unfortunately Product doesn't have a 'video' property. > > > > Which could be resolved by either having 'video' be part of Thing or > having a completely new property like 'related' as you proposed. Either > way, there's something missing right now to provide this type of > relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:42 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org < > martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > > Hi Jarno: > > > > Below is how I would model a product video with the current set of > elements. > > In general I would suggest that if a use-case can be sufficiently > covered with existing elements, we rather encourage search engines to > implement support for the respective markup rather than adding redundant > conceptual elements that are there just because search engines prefer a > particular direction of a relationship. > > > > Example: Product with video: > > > > <div itemprop="video" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoObject" > itemref="product"> > > <h2>Video: <span itemprop="name">Video of the Personal SCSI controller > in use</span></h2> > > <meta itemprop="duration" content="T1M33S" /> > > <meta itemprop="thumbnail" content="personal-scsi-thumb.jpg" /> > > > > <object ...> > > <param ...> > > <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" ...> > > </object> > > <span itemprop="description">In this short video, we show how to use > the controller in typical setting.</span> > > </div> > > > > > > <div id="product"> > > <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/ProductModel"> > > <span itemprop="name">The Personal SCSI Controller by ACME > Technology</span> > > <!-- other product properties go here --> > > </div> > > </div> > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > > > Martin Hepp > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > martin hepp > > e-business & web science research group > > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > > > e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de > > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > > skype: mfhepp > > twitter: mfhepp > > > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > > ================================================================= > > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > > > > > > > > > On 08 Apr 2014, at 15:10, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote: > > > > > "Conceptually, this is not true, since you can use itemref in > Microdata..." > > > > > > Would you be so kind to provide a small markup example, that > illustrates this. I think I understand what you mean but unfotunately > without an example I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. > > > > > > Op 8 apr. 2014 14:20 schreef "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" < > martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>: > > > Conceptually, this is not true, since you can use itemref in Microdata > or a unique identifier in RDFa to make the video the outer entitity in the > nesting. > > > However, search engines have, in practice, two problems with this: > > > > > > 1. Rich snippets and similar techniques often depend on finding one > main entity type, and use the outermost entities (root entities) in the > syntax for that task. So a Web page with a VideoObject and an Offer nested > therein may not trigger a product snippet because the search engine thinks > it was mainly a page about a video. > > > > > > 2. The linkage between entities on the basis of identifiers in RDFa > is, to my experience, not properly supported by major search engines, so in > reality, my proposed pattern will only work in Microdata. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > On 08 Apr 2014, at 13:01, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > 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.org I 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'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 15:07:12 UTC