RE: Update: VisualArtwork type proposed in May this year

Hi Dan,

Yes, my email and username are the same for both and still it doesn't work.

-Thanigai.

From: Dan Brickley [danbri@danbri.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:33 AM
To: Thanigai Vellore
Cc: Dan Brickley; lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk; public-vocabs@w3.org; Tom Morris
Subject: Re: Update: VisualArtwork type proposed in May this year

On 13 August 2013 00:09, Thanigai Vellore <TVellore@art.com<mailto:TVellore@art.com>> wrote:
Hi Dan,

When I try to push changes to the mercurial repo (https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/), I get an "authorization failed" error. I use the same account that I use to login to W3C webschema site. Do I require any other special permission to submit changes?

Below is the error that I get....

pushing to https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/
searching for changes
http authorization required
realm: W3C Mercurial Repository
abort: authorization failed
[command returned code 255 Mon Aug 12 16:05:16 2013]

Investigating. I think there's a mechanism by which W3C accounts have email addresses, and this list has email addresses, and if they match perfectly it all works automatically - populating a 'Web Schemas' group with the participants from this list. But I need to take another look. Do your email addresses for list + W3C site match exactly?

Dan


-Thanigai.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@google.com<mailto:danbri@google.com>]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:37 AM
To: lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk<mailto:lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>; Tom Morris
Subject: Re: Update: VisualArtwork type proposed in May this year

On 28 July 2013 14:50, Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk<mailto:lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>> wrote:
> On 27/07/13 15:33, Tom Morris wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Paul Watson
> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk<mailto:lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Some months ago I proposed a VisualArtwork type (details at
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/VisualArtwork)
>>
>> I have just made 1 edit to the wiki to change the "materials" property to
>> the singular "material", which is more in line with other schemas (where
>> properties are described in the singular), and allows multiple materials
>> used on a single piece of artwork to be marked up individually, e.g.
>>
>> <span itemprop="material">Oil</span> and <span itemprop="material">Gold
>> Leaf</span> on <span itemprop="surface">wood</span>
>>
>> Thanigai Vellore has also added their suggestions for a ColorPalette
>> addition to the VisualArtwork type on the wiki yesterday. I have no
>> objections to this addition, even though I would not use those properties
>> myself - I can see that it might be useful for certain applications of the
>> schema.
>>
>> There didn't seem to be any objection to the VisualArtwork proposal back
>> in May (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013May/0024.html)
>> and several people welcomed/seconded it, and so I was wondering:
>>
>> What is the process to move this proposal to full inclusion and
>> publication on schema.org<http://schema.org>?
>
>
> I can't help with the process, but I think a more specific property name
> than "edition" would be useful.  While the descriptive text is clear, it's
> probably not what most people think of when they see the name.
>
> I'd also consider "support" or some other alternative to "surface" since it
> often isn't on the surface at all.  You might want to include "Medium" in
> the description for "Material" as a synonym that people are likely to search
> for.
>
> I'm not really thrilled with the color palette proposal. As you mentioned,
> reflective colors, unlike transmissive colors, are entirely dependent on the
> light they are reflecting.  I can't imagine any describing an artwork as 30%
> sky blue and the RGB hex value is going to be meaningless without some
> reference light source (not to mention digital works using non-RGB color
> spaces).
>
> Tom
>
>
> Tom - thanks for the advice. I've rewritten the definition of "edition"  on
> the wiki which will hopefully make it more accessible outside the world of
> printmaking:
>
> "The number of copies when multiple copies of a piece of artwork are
> produced - e.g. for a limited edition of 20 prints, 'edition' refers to the
> total number of copies (in this example "20"). "
>
> I've also added a mention of "support" to the definition of "surface", and
> rewritten the description of the "material" property to include the word
> "medium".
>
>
> Can anyone else help with letting me know the process to move this proposal
> to full inclusion and publication on schema.org<http://schema.org>?

The process is roughly - that the schema.org<http://schema.org> partners try to keep an
eye on the list of proposals in the Wiki, and in touch with their
authors/advocates. We look out for areas of rough consensus and then
queue things up for a final review by partners during which we look
for overlaps with other schemas. It is reasonable to expect us this
process to become more structured and clearly documented. In the
meantime, I think for this particular schema I'd look for consensus
that it is reasonably reconciled with the efforts around bibliographic
description. This doesn't mean that ideas for improvements to Book,
ScholarlyArticle etc need to be perfected before we can proceed with
VisualArtwork. Rather that the kinds of discussion we're seeing now
should happen. So in that sense I think we're on target.

I did make a draft RDFS/RDFa schema file for this,
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext/visualartwork.html
... if you have a W3C account associated with the WebSchemas group it
should be possible to edit/improve it directly via Mercurial, to track
the evolving discussion.

Dan