Re: VideoGames

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

- Dirtier data.  It has been reported that a 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, 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:

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <> 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 especially with
> projects like 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:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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