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

Re: schema.org sdo-venkman release is now live as v1.92

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:15:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4AZ9Cgpg-BATgTq16eC-0x0zYHO8LC1yGQqxPu1TXf=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 22 December 2014 at 11:58, Paul Watson
<lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Niklas
>
> Yes, there was some discussion some months back, I think. My view is that
> Painting and Sculpture should be deprecated, but there is a case for keeping
> Photograph for non-artistic uses (e.g. documentary photography).

We discussed Sculpture before, as not being purely a visual thing. If
you search around you'll find plenty of articles about sculpture as a
tactile experience, e.g. (but not only) created by, or for
appreciation by, people who are blind or with visual impairment. With
3D printing technologies rising fast it seems reasonable to assume
"look don't touch" attitudes to sculpture might fade further in the
face of cheap and accurate object replication. In general I don't see
a need to throw out perfectly serviceable types (Painting too) just
because we've generalised them. Although I'll acknowledge that having
two ways of saying the same thing does add complexity, having a short
form as a simple type can also often be handy.

cheers,

Dan

> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>
> On 22/12/14 11:54, Niklas Lindström wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Has there been any more thoughts about resolving the "artform as distinct
> property" vs "subclasses per form" divergence introduced here? By which I
> mean whether the existing classes Photograph and Painting should be
> deprecated in favour of this distinct (and textual) notion of artform?
>
> And depending on that, would it be reasonable to at least extend the range
> for artform, material and surface to include Intangible alongside Text? It
> can be quite useful to be able to point to e.g. a class or (external)
> enumeration for these values if possible, to support controlled value
> coordination (and e.g. internationalization of labels) when presenting
> collections.
>
> ... Or unless we'd want to go down the same route as for e.g.
> BookFormatType, I suppose the schema.org way of doing things would be "Text
> or URL" (although in my Linked Data mindset, I think "Text or Thing" when I
> see that...)
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Paul Watson
> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tom
>>
>> The colorPalette property/type never achieved consensus - it was
>> problematic in several respects. As such it has been dropped - at least from
>> this initial launch of the VisualArtwork type.
>>
>> I agree that "materials" should be "material" - this was discussed about a
>> year ago, but I must have forgotten to make the change on the wiki. I've
>> made that change in both the main file and the examples on github, and
>> submitted pull requests for both.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 19/12/14 23:36, Tom Marsh wrote:
>>
>> It looks like sdo-stantz is missing the colorPalette property and
>> ColorPalette type. Are those still to be incorporated?
>>
>> Also, should materials be singular (material) instead? I thought we were
>> avoiding plurals.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@google.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:39 AM
>> To: Paul Watson
>> Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force
>> Subject: Re: schema.org sdo-venkman release is now live as v1.92
>>
>> On 16 December 2014 at 18:26, Paul Watson
>> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/12/14 17:27, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> On 15 December 2014 at 17:09, Paul Watson
>> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/14 09:28, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2014 04:37 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> We have just 'soft launched' the large package of improvements
>> recently circulated as the 'venkman' release. While they are
>> intended as the foundation for a "version 2.0" release we wanted
>> to get the vocabulary improvements out there ASAP without rushing
>> to v2 prematurely. There's a lot more that could be said about
>> each set of changes (Music, Video games, Sports, ItemList /
>> breadcrumbs, etc etc.) than we can say today, so for now we'll
>> stick with a simple "thank you!" to all who have participated in
>> this effort. Thanks :)
>>
>> As always our issue tracker is open to all for any bugs that have
>> crept in. You'll find it linked from:
>>
>> Release notes: http://schema.org/docs/releases.html#v1.92
>>
>> Great work! + kudos to everyone who contributed ☆
>>
>> also glad to see on github a *milestone* for the next one \o/
>>
>> +1 great work
>>
>> Would be great if we could get  schema.org/VisualArtwork released as
>> some point - it's been waiting for a very long time and seems to get
>> ignored from every release
>>
>> Funny you should mention that! Vicki and I were just chatting about
>> it earlier. Sorry this is taking so long, ... but here we go:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/commit/97b9c5c1d35ad9cd911c300402
>> 5e5678467183b9 http://sdo-stantz.appspot.com/VisualArtwork
>>
>> Where 'stantz' is the codename for whatever the next release ends up
>> being called, i.e. the milestone in Github that elf Pavlik spotted.
>>
>> We need to translate the examples to other formats but other than
>> that I think this looks good.
>>
>> I've opened a bug in github to track this (things are slowly
>> migrating over from W3C wiki/tracker),
>> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/issues/204
>> cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> That's excellent news!
>>
>> I attempted to add the Microdata and JSON format examples in Github
>> today, as well as adding the missing artEdition property.
>>
>> You should have pull requests for those two changes (so long as I
>> worked on the correct branches)
>>
>> Yes I think that workflow makes sense - I pulled those edits into my
>> sdo-visualwork then from there I made a new pull request that puts them into
>> sdo-stantz. That's maybe a bit indirect but keeps things clear. I don't
>> live-and-breath Git(hub) workflow methodologies so there's a certain amount
>> of making-it-up-as-we-go-along happening here. Anyway,  I've merged it in
>> via
>> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/pull/33 "danbri wants to merge 4
>> commits into sdo-stantz from sdo-visualwork"
>>
>> http://sdo-stantz.appspot.com/VisualArtwork
>> http://sdo-stantz.appspot.com/artEdition ... seem to show the changes just
>> fine, thanks :)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 17:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:46 UTC