Re: Proposal: VisualArtwork

Wondering what the functionally aspects are for this vocabulary?  Or rather
how the vocabulary is imagined to be applied (other than humans writing
descriptions?), e.g. if these terms are going to be applied to everything
on the Web, would vocabularies more akin to google image filters be
applicable such as black and white, transparent, line drawing, clip art,
etc... Things that machine can apply retrospectively rather than humans?
It is the machine that will do the majority of classification so the
vocabulary needs to be usable by machine as well as humans.  I'm not
against this vocabulary as proposed, just saying it needs to be further
considered if developers are going to write tools so it can be utilised
progmatically?  /Flanders
On May 8, 2013 8:44 AM, "Guha" <guha@google.com> wrote:

> I agree. This is a good idea and a simple addition.
>
> If there aren't objections, we will include it in the next draft.
>
> guha
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>