- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:21:10 +0100
- To: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Hi, Just to tell that I'm also interested in the more general GLAM topics. And I strongly second Richard's proposal, not to mess with the fate of the current CreativeWork proposal by starting discussions right now... cheers, Antoine On 2/21/14 2:02 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: > There is significant overlapping of concerns between bibliographic and other GLAM domains which is relevant to some of the discussions we have been having. I have no objection in some discussion here. > > Specifically on collections, one of the simple examples used in our Collection proposal <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/index.php?title=Collection> was of a collection in a gallery. > > There will probably the need to consider yet more CreativeWork relationships to handle this domain. However I would plea that we keep those separate from the current CreativeWork relationships proposal that is making its slow process through the system at the moment. > > Interesting to note the announcement from Getty about the LOD release of the AAT vocabulary <http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/art-architecture-thesaurus-now-available-as-linked-open-data/> - no doubt the object of some topic or ‘about’ properties that we can think of. > > ~Richard > > On 20 Feb 2014, at 15:37, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com <mailto:lindstream@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> That's a good question. >> >> I am personally interested in a very specific issue: there is a "missing base class" for Painting and Photograph (i.e. Image or Picture, to cover all kinds of other forms like drawings and digital imagery). I was going to just suggest that on the public vocabs list – but perhaps others here have similar needs and would like to help out in creating a more fleshed out proposal? (Which is probably more likely to gain traction in a near future.) >> >> (There are at least some creative work relationships that I've needed in conjunction with this – such as a revisionOf property.) >> >> Cheers, >> Niklas >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I do have 1 thought. Towards the wider scope of GLAM, in general. >> >> Specifically, I am wondering if the Schemabibex Group has/is interested in trying to assist with another bib focus for Art (items in a collection). >> >> My question is... are all the pieces in place for describing bibliographic resources towards those items in a collection of Art ? >> Or does the Schemaibibex Group think that other groups have more leverage and should let them handle work on that ? >> >> Curious, >> >> -- >> -Thad >> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 19:20:31 UTC