W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Update: VisualArtwork type proposed in May this year

From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:50:24 +0100
Message-ID: <51F51390.9020907@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
CC: danbri@google.com, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com>
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 

Thanks in advance,

Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 12:50:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:00 UTC