- From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:06:58 +0000
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 23/12/14 16:17, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > 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 > Hi Karen That's a possibility for the future (or for advanced users), but I think that removing the artform property and replacing it with schema:additionalType would put the use of the VisualArtwork schema class out-of-reach of individual artists and small galleries who aren't familiar with AAT etc. The artform property balances the needs of large academic institutions (who would like to map artforms from controlled vocabularies such as AAT, and can do so with this solution) with those of smaller galleries and individual artists who run their own small websites (but are not expert web developers or conversant with academic controlled vocabularies) but want to accurately mark up their linoprints, assemblages, collages, pencil drawings, pastel drawings, screenprints, woodcuts, etchings, oil paintings, watercolours, monoprints, etc. using a simple-to-use schema.org class. Paul
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2014 10:07:23 UTC