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

Re: VisualArtwork

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:10:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaPGeF9Vg2P1tYJESe6rCLSakEk=t5UU=rCQaZSniymxaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
https://www.freebase.com/visual_art

Check out how we set it up in Freebase currently... we have properties such
as Art Form as well as Art Genre and Medium.  (although the instance data
under those is filled in by the community, and probably has lots of
misconceptions or needs more cleanup...but at least we have the
properties.)  There's some cool enumerated ones already, like "courtroom
sketch" being a Art Genre, rather than an Art Form.
https://www.freebase.com/visual_art/visual_art_genre?instances=

Hope it helps the discussion further here...let me know if I can
dis-entangle anything.



On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Paul Watson <
lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:

> On 07/04/14 16:37, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 08:09:01PM +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> <snip> to focus on VisualArtwork specifically
>>
>>  http://sdo-culture-bundle.appspot.com/VisualArtwork
>>>
>>> This doesn't have examples yet, and there are some overlaps with
>>> existing property usage that need addressing, but it should soon give
>>> us a unified view of cultural heritage-related improvements.
>>>
>>
>> Per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0000.html
>>
>> * "materials" attribute should be "material"; embrace the singular(ity)!
>> * "artEdition" attribute is not there; maybe a few words about the
>>   intention there (e.g. if the thought is that it's too specific and
>>   "description" might suffice, or perhaps Product/productID if one
>>   wants specificity?)
>>
>
> I'll try to get a good example marked up and added to the wiki using
> artEdition this weekend.
>
> artEdition is definitely different from productID.
>
> A quick example from the internet - for this Andy Warhol print:
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ANDY-WARHOL-DOLLAR-SIGN-RED-
> SIGNED-HAND-NUMBERED-2097-3000-LITHOGRAPH-/201051553410
>
> The value of artEdition would be '3000' because it's an "edition of 3000"
> - " or "limited edition of 3000", but the word "limited" generally isn't
> used in fine art printmaking as any edition is by definition limited.
>
>
>> When an example is added, it should demonstrate both how to describe a
>> VisualArtwork entity and how to use the "encoding" property to lead to
>> an "ImageObject" which offers a version of the artwork.
>>
>
> I can certainly add some examples demonstrating how to describe a
> VisualArtwork entity (again, I'll try to get these done this weekend). I
> have to admit I'm not entirely sure how to 'use the "encoding" property to
> lead to an "ImageObject" which offers a version of the artwork'. I'm a Web
> Developer and an Artist, and I'm still learning my way around the more
> detailed aspects of schema.org, so any help/guidance would be
> appreciated. Presume I know nothing and you can't go wrong!
>
>
>
>> 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 ?)
>>
>
> I have no objections to this.
>
> My original aim on introducing the "artform" property was to replace the
> "Sculpture" and "Painting" types with a single VisualArtwork type where the
> specific artform could be defined using this artform property. My thinking
> was that this was better than inventing 1001 more types to describe all the
> various fine art media that are not either "Sculpture" or "Painting".
>
> Your suggestion above does that, and probably does it more elegantly than
> my original suggestion.
>
>
>> 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
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 20:11:06 UTC

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