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

Re: Proposal: VisualArtwork

From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:06:56 +0100
Message-ID: <51897B00.30308@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
I have created a wiki page for this suggestion at 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/VisualArtwork with the details plus 
some initial example markup.

Paul

On 07/05/13 21:59, Paul Watson wrote:
> 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 22:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC