Re: Relationships to Art - Was: Schemabibex Group entering a different phase

With apologies as this has probably been answered somewhere, but what does this all mean for further work on the Comic Book schema?  I admit that I have only been skimming the list since that was set aside for a focus on more fundamental concepts (a plan I fully agreed with).

thanks,
-henry


>________________________________
> From: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
>To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> 
>Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>; "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>; "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org> 
>Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 5:02 AM
>Subject: Relationships to Art - Was: Schemabibex Group entering a different  phase
> 
>
>
>There is significant overlapping of concerns between bibliographic and other GLAM domains which is relevant to some of the discussions we have been having.  I have no objection in some discussion here. 
>
>
>Specifically on collections, one of the simple examples used in our Collection proposal <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/index.php?title=Collection> was of a collection in a gallery.
>
>
>There will probably the need to consider yet more CreativeWork relationships to handle this domain.  However I would plea that we keep those separate from the current CreativeWork relationships proposal that is making its slow process through the system at the moment.
>
>
>Interesting to note the announcement from Getty about the LOD release of the AAT vocabulary <http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/art-architecture-thesaurus-now-available-as-linked-open-data/> - no doubt the object of some topic or ‘about’ properties that we can think of.
>
>
>~Richard
>
>On 20 Feb 2014, at 15:37, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>That's a good question. 
>>
>>
>>I am personally interested in a very specific issue: there is a "missing base class" for Painting and Photograph (i.e. Image or Picture, to cover all kinds of other forms like drawings and digital imagery). I was going to just suggest that on the public vocabs list – but perhaps others here have similar needs and would like to help out in creating a more fleshed out proposal? (Which is probably more likely to gain traction in a near future.)
>>
>>
>>(There are at least some creative work relationships that I've needed in conjunction with this – such as a revisionOf property.)
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Niklas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I do have 1 thought.  Towards the wider scope of GLAM, in general. 
>>>
>>>
>>>Specifically, I am wondering if the Schemabibex Group has/is interested in trying to assist with another bib focus for Art (items in a collection).
>>>
>>>
>>>My question is... are all the pieces in place for describing bibliographic resources towards those items in a collection of Art ?
>>>Or does the Schemaibibex Group think that other groups have more leverage and should let them handle work on that ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Curious,
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>
>>>-Thad 
>>>+ThadGuidry
>>>Thad on LinkedIn
>>>
>>
>
>
>