W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Proposal: VisualArtwork

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:43:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-pc11jvsmmSf_uWLC=G4JDM73tBa3b5Rh09DpCJ+RjhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I agree. This is a good idea and a simple addition.

If there aren't objections, we will include it in the next draft.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Paul Watson <
lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> This is a proposal for a new Type: Thing > CreativeWork > VisualArtwork
> I am aware that there are already sub-Types for "Painting", "Sculpture",
> and "Photograph", but this doesn't seem like a viable way forward. There
> are many other types of artwork (printmaking, drawing, collage, assemblage,
> digital art, etc.) and it seems illogical to create new Types for each
> artform.
> So my proposal is for the 'VisualArtwork' Type to be used instead of
> "Painting" or "Sculpture", and instead of "Photograph" where the photograph
> in question is being presented in context as an artwork as opposed to
> forensic photography, etc.
> A number of additional properties enable would allow a wider range of
> visual artwork media to use this type. These properties are:
> * artform (e.g. Painting, Drawing, Sculpture, Print, Photograph,
> Assemblage, Collage, etc.)
> * materials (e.g. Oil, Watercolour, Linoprint, Marble, Cyanotype, Digital,
> Lithograph, Pencil, Mixed Media, etc.)
> * surface (e.g. Canvas, Paper, Wood, Board, etc.)
> * width (an instance of http://schema.org/Distance)
> * height (an instance of http://schema.org/Distance)
> * depth (an instance of http://schema.org/Distance)
> * edition (For multiples such as prints, the number of copies in the
> edition)
> As you can see, rather than having many different subTytpes of Creative
> work for paintings, sculptures, prints, drawings, collages, tapestry, etc,
> the VisualArtwork proposal allows the artform to be designated under the
> new "artform" property.
> I have written up the proposed new VisualArtwork type at http://new-media.
> **lazaruscorporation.co.uk/2013/**05/2nd-draft-an-idea-for-an-**
> alternative-schema-org-type-**for-artwork/<http://new-media.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/2013/05/2nd-draft-an-idea-for-an-alternative-schema-org-type-for-artwork/>
> I would be interested to hear whether this proposal would have any
> support? Apart from implementing microdata and RDFa Lite on website this is
> my first foray into serious thought about extending schemas, and I won't be
> offended by any criticism!
> Paul
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:43:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC