W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: VisualArtwork

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:36:46 +0200
Message-ID: <534398FE.2020800@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org

On 4/7/14, 5:37 PM, Dan Scott wrote:

> I find the "artform" property problematic, as it seems to conflict with
> more specific types such as "Sculpture"; I would have anticipated
> VisualArtwork to be the base class for Sculpture (along with the
> examples that Niklas mentioned), and guidance to use multi-types to
> express more specific kinds of artwork where no more specific types
> exist in schema.org (for example,
> http://www.productontology.org/id/Assemblage_%28art%29 and
> http://www.productontology.org/id/Collage ?)

This coincides with the definition in the Getty Art & Architecture 
thesaurus, which is one of the authoritative sources for definitions in 
this area:

"visual arts (arts (broad discipline), <arts and related disciplines>, 
... Disciplines (facet))

Note: Physical objects that are that are meant to be perceived primarily 
through the sense of sight, were created by the use of skill and 
imagination, and possess an aesthetic that is valued and of a quality 
and type that would be collected by art museums or private collectors, 
including drawings, painting, sculpture, architecture, and decorative 
arts. Performance art is considered a visual art, but the performing 
arts and literature are not."

> I'd really like it if the "image" property had a range of VisualArtwork
> so that the cover art for books / comics / etc and the photos in
> articles could get a proper description & credits, rather than just a
> URL per "image" or "thumbnailURL". I posted more extensive thoughts
> about relatively simple changes that would enable richer descriptions
> of cover art and thumbnails at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Nov/0091.html

Here I think we run into a problem that most likely exists in other 
areas of schema.org: the thing, vs. the context of the thing or its 
usage. As Jarno just pointed out, a form like "video" is not necessarily 
a creative work, just as an image is not. One could say the same thing 
of a text (e.g. phone book). Placing physical formats in a category like 
creative work is actually a limitation on their use and exhibits a 
certain bias.

This, of course, leads us back to the discussion of facets, although it 
may be too late to introduce such a concept into schema.org. But imagine 
if something as basic as an image could be designated as a creative 
work, a medical tool, a form of advertising, etc. etc. etc.


> Thanks,
> Dan

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 06:37:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC