Re: Proposal: VisualArtwork

I had envisaged this Type as being for "still" visual artforms only (I'm 
classing sculptures with a moving component - kinetic art - as "still" 
for this definition). As you say, moving images - and other time-based 
artforms such as performance art - would need a different Type because 
they need a different set of properties to describe them, and so they're 
outside the scope of this proposal.

I'd be interested in knowing what extra properties you'd suggest for 
people who want to get more specific?

Paul

On 07/05/13 21:45, Karen Coyle wrote:
> This sounds sensible, although there will probably also need to be a 
> way to get more specific for those who wish. One question though: is 
> this for "still" visuals only? e.g. does it not cover moving images? 
> In the library world we divide things between still and moving, mainly 
> because of the differences in physical description (still has h x w, 
> moving as duration, etc.).
>
> (We also divide the 2-dimensional image world into "projected" and 
> "non-projected" but that's sooooo 1960's educational materials :-))
>
> kc
>
>
> On 5/7/13 12:41 PM, Paul Watson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a proposal for a new Type: Thing > CreativeWork > VisualArtwork
>>
>> I am aware that there are already sub-Types for "Painting", "Sculpture",
>> and "Photograph", but this doesn't seem like a viable way forward. There
>> are many other types of artwork (printmaking, drawing, collage,
>> assemblage, digital art, etc.) and it seems illogical to create new
>> Types for each artform.
>>
>> So my proposal is for the 'VisualArtwork' Type to be used instead of
>> "Painting" or "Sculpture", and instead of "Photograph" where the
>> photograph in question is being presented in context as an artwork as
>> opposed to forensic photography, etc.
>>
>> A number of additional properties enable would allow a wider range of
>> visual artwork media to use this type. These properties are:
>>
>> * artform (e.g. Painting, Drawing, Sculpture, Print, Photograph,
>> Assemblage, Collage, etc.)
>> * materials (e.g. Oil, Watercolour, Linoprint, Marble, Cyanotype,
>> Digital, Lithograph, Pencil, Mixed Media, etc.)
>> * surface (e.g. Canvas, Paper, Wood, Board, etc.)
>> * width (an instance of http://schema.org/Distance)
>> * height (an instance of http://schema.org/Distance)
>> * depth (an instance of http://schema.org/Distance)
>> * edition (For multiples such as prints, the number of copies in the
>> edition)
>>
>> As you can see, rather than having many different subTytpes of Creative
>> work for paintings, sculptures, prints, drawings, collages, tapestry,
>> etc, the VisualArtwork proposal allows the artform to be designated
>> under the new "artform" property.
>>
>> I have written up the proposed new VisualArtwork type at
>> http://new-media.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/2013/05/2nd-draft-an-idea-for-an-alternative-schema-org-type-for-artwork/ 
>>
>>
>>
>> I would be interested to hear whether this proposal would have any
>> support? Apart from implementing microdata and RDFa Lite on website this
>> is my first foray into serious thought about extending schemas, and I
>> won't be offended by any criticism!
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 20:59:51 UTC