- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:09:47 +0200
- To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFQgrbZm45zq3Tb9hmbCCdCSm0G8qb_k69eY6x6Z1pE=ViiL3Q@mail.gmail.com>
> > While we can know there is a relationship, it is difficult to understand > what that relationship is. But doesn't that also count for a property like 'isRelatedTo' (Product). Or for the 'about' property for that matter. If a video is 'about' Obama does it mean that... Whatever the blanks are we don't know unless there is a relationship to begin with. And once that relationship is established isn't further context/info than provided by the properties of the, for example, VideoObject? On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>wrote: > My fear is that a "related" property would lead to confusion between > authors and consumers. For example, if we had a VideoObject related to > Barack Obama, does he appear in the video? Does the video discuss him? Is > it about a book he wrote? > > While we can know there is a relationship, it is difficult to understand > what that relationship is. > > - Vicki > > > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote: > >> "The type of the object of this statement would then indicate the nature >> of the relatedness, e.g. a VideoObject." >> Says it all for me. In my mind this makes perfect sense, does anybody >> have any extra input on this from a data-consumer perspective maybe? >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org < >> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks! The "related" property could also be used to link related >>> products in shop applications, btw. >>> >>> Of course, the exact semantics of the properties is pretty broad, but we >>> can leave it up to the consumers of the data to interprete it, imo. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08 Apr 2014, at 17:06, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote: >>> >>> > 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 16:10:33 UTC