Specifying when/where an Action may be performed

[vholland]

Many Action links, particularly for consuming media, are limited by time and/or region based on the complexities of licensing. For example, a user may only be able to listen to a song after a certain date or read a book in a certain country. To help authors describe the access restrictions for performing an Action, I am proposing adding the following:

1. Thing > Intangible > ActionAccessSpecification: A set of requirements that a must be fulfilled in order to access a consume action. It would have the following properties:

• availabilityStarts: This property already exists. We would add it to ActionAccessSpecification to allow authors to describe when users can begin performing the Action.
• availabilityEnds: This property already exists. We would add it to ActionAccessSpecification to allow authors to describe when users can no longer perform the Action.
• eligibleRegion: This property already exists. We would add it to ActionAccessSpecification to allow authors to describe where the user can perform the Action.
  expectsAcceptanceOf: This property already exists. We would add it to ActionAccessSpecification to allow authors to say an Offer must be accepted before the Action can be performed. This is used in cases where users must purchase or rent access to the item.
• requiresSubscription: This property already exists and expects a boolean. We would expand both the domain and range to allow for a description of the subscription. (See below).

2. Add a new property actionAccessibilityRequirement to ConsumeAction to specify the requirements needed to access the Action.
3. Thing > Intangible > MediaSubscription: A subscription which allows a user to access media including audio, video, books, etc. It would have the following properties:

• authenticator: The Organization responsible for authenticating the user's subscription. For example, many media apps require a cable/satellite provider to authenticate your subscription before playing media.
• expectsAcceptanceOf: This property already exists. We would add it to MediaSubscription to allow authors to say an Offer must be accepted for the subscription to be considered valid. The relationship between the action provider, authenticator, and subscription seller is sometimes complicated, so I have tried to reference an Offer which may go into further detail about the seller, etc.

An example may look like:

{
  "@context": "http://schema.org/",
  "@type": "MusicRecording",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "ListenAction",
    "actionAccessibilityRequirement": {
      "@type": "ActionAccessSpecification",
      "availabilityStarts": "2017-01-01T00:00",
      "availabilityEnds": "2017-12-31T00:00",
      "eligibleRegion": {
         "@type": "Country",
         "sameAs": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q166433",
         "name": "US"
       },
       "requiresSubscription": {
         "@type": "MediaSubscription",
         "name": "ACME streaming music monthly subscription",
         "authenticator": {
           "@type": "Organization",
           "name": "ACME Media"
         }
       },    
       "expectsAcceptanceOf": {
         "@type": "Offer",
         "itemOffered": {
           "@type": "MusicRecording",
           "name": "Song I am listening to that is only available for streaming after I buy it."
         }
       }
     }
   }
}

[danbri]

This got used at Google https://developers.google.com/actions/media/tv-movies-specification

(we document use of at least ActionAccessSpecification, MediaSubscription, actionAccessibilityRequirement, authenticator, availabilityEnds, availabilityStarts, category, eligibleRegion, expectsAcceptanceOf, requiresSubjection. )

[vinitakadam]

Hi,

Can we in any way add "eligibleRegion" and "ineligibleRegion" markup in my Sports video content or is the specific for Music, TV Show and Movies?
If i add "eligibleRegion" and "ineligibleRegion" to my VideoObject schema it gives me a warning.

[mfhepp]

Just a generic comment: While I think the reuse of such properties is a quick and pragmatic solution, it is one step further towards changing the definition of a property from a global one (identical for all types with which it is being used) to a frame-based/local definition, where a property's meaning is actually defined at the level of the type. In some cases, this is no big deal, as a broader textual definition will do. But in general it makes the vocabulary less maintainable.

I think I suggested a few years ago to introduce a defined mechanism for this, with a default definition and text for a property at the global level and the possibility to override the definition (at least the text) at the level of a particular type.

[ghost]

What if availabilityEnds is unspecified? Should it be null or should we use the SQL 12/31/9999, 12/30/9999 solution?