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

I'm always ready. ;-)

On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:27 PM, "Thad Guidry" <thadguidry@gmail.com<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote:

+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<mailto: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 Lindstr?m <lindstream@gmail.com<mailto:lindstream@gmail.com> <mailto: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> <mailto: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/>