Re: Relationships to Art - Was: Schemabibex Group entering a different phase

+1 Agreed.  Come back to this thread once Schemabibex group is ready, I'd
say... to enter that next new phase.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 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/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>