- From: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:19:51 -0700
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Cc: Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMbipBtm28Oi-_0TYeNSxiKoKWHAhzD8EVducWp3rJ_q0pPryA@mail.gmail.com>
I still contend the lack of a mechanism to associate an individual video game with the video game series to which it belongs is a major omission. Series (a.k.a. franchises) are an intrinsic part of the contemporary video game landscape. Of the 10 best-selling video games of 2013, 8 were titles in a video game series [1]. The consequences of not being able to declare information about a video game series include: - Less linked data. Data consumers have no explicit mechanism to link titles in a series. Without such a mechanism, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 1942 will be seen as standalone video game titles by data consumers. - Dirtier data. It has been reported that a schema.org video game type has been oft-requested, and so we can expect better-than-average adoption once VideoGame is made available. Webmasters will inevitably mark up video game series as individual video games if no means of marking up a series exists, and we'll end up with a glut of poor data. - Ambiguous declarations. As often as not the first video game in a franchise has the same name as the video game series itself. In such situations it won't be possible for data consumers to tell whether a reference is to a particular video game or a to a video game series - unless webmasters studiously refrain from marking up a video game series as a VideoGame (which they won't - see above). When this came up initially the discussion veered in a couple of directions, including exploring a fit with the still-under consideration Periodical proposal, and something like "GameSeries" and "PublicationSeries" which could be added to a class "Series". My fear is that we'll publish VideoGame and punt on VideoGameSeries as the "series"/"periodical" concept is fleshed out. For the reasons described above I think this would result in some negative consequences for the sake of expediency. Accordingly I'd urge either of these two routes instead: - Add the more specific Series type "VideoGameSeries", which could then appear as a value for the property "partOfSeries" - the types on which "partOfSeries" then extended to include "VideoGame" - Wait until we've worked out a suitable framework that supports the declaration of an individual video game as part of a series. FWIW a colleague reminds me that a franchise and a series are two different things, and that "franchise" is probably more applicable to video games. However, schema.org lacks that concept in other domains (there's no franchise-like type to link together, say, the different types of "CSI" TV series), Freebase uses "Video Game Series" type - and for "Video Games" the property "Part of game series", and the colloquial sense of "series" can reasonably accommodate "franchise" IMO. [1] (1) Grand Theft Auto V, (2) Call of Duty: Ghosts, (3) FIFA 2014, (4) Pokemon X&Y, (5) Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, (6) The Last of Us, (7) Animal Crossing: New Leaf, (8) Tomb Raider [2013], (9) Monster Hunter IV, (10) Bioshock Infinite; source: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2013/12/13/10-Bestselling-Video-Games-2013 On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ < perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > What do you think about > * adding schema:GameCharacter extending schema:Person > * creating schema:Quest which schema:quest would expect > * reusing schema:location where Place would provide support for URL > ("@id"), maybe also schema:VirtualPlace extending schema:Place > * schema:characterAttribute could extend something also relevant for > schema:Person, myself I would find it interesting possibility to import > some concepts from http://purl.org/ontology/cco/core especially with > projects like http://jsonresume.org/ popping up. > > Also somehow schema:NumberOfPlayer shows instead of schema:numberOfPlayers > > I also notice possible mistakes in examples > * schema:employee and schema:founder expect schema:Person > * schema:publisher expects schema:Organization > * schema:copyrightHolder expects schema:Organization or schema:Person > * schema:availability expects schema:ItemAvailability > relevant in all those cases: http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#embedding > > Looks to me like a good work, especially with decent amount of examples! > > // > > side note: 243KB attachment sent to a mailing list -> maybe just a hyper > link to it in a future? ;) > > > > On 07/08/2014 08:16 PM, Yuliya Tikhokhod wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is intended to be a final or near final version of Video Game > > proposal. > > > > Here are test build > > http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/VideoGame > > http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/Game > > http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/SoftwareApplication > > http://sdo-yavg.appspot.com/CreativeWork > > > > PDF version is attached > > > > Please let me know if you have any comments > > > > -- > > Yuliya Tikhokhod > > > > Yandex > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 00:20:18 UTC