- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:17:07 -0800
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 12/23/14 3:01 AM, Paul Watson wrote: > The problem with creating specific subclasses for the hundreds of > different artforms that galleries, academics, and artists use to > describe the various media that an artist can work in is simply that - > there are literally hundreds of them, which would necessitate the > creation and maintenance of hundreds of different schema.org subclasses. Isn't this analogous to the problem of listing product types, which has been solved by allowing use of the productOntology. Couldn't artforms be schema:additionalType using one or more known vocabularies, like AAT or the MARC21 types? kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2014 16:17:37 UTC