Re: Proposal: VisualArtwork

On 5/7/13 1:59 PM, Paul Watson wrote:

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

Paul, I think you were going there when you mentioned drawings, 
collages, lithographs... etc. BAsically, what type of image is it? I can 
provide here the library list but it is, as one might expect, a bit arcane:

a - Activity card
c - Collage
d - Drawing
e - Painting
f - Photomechanical print
g - Photonegative
h - Photoprint
i - Picture
j - Print
k - Poster
l - Technical drawing
n - Chart
o - Flash card
p - Postcard
q - Icon
r - Radiograph>
s - Study print
u - Unspecified
v - Photograph, type unspecified

Then the obvious thing is dimensions - h x w.

Next, color: for photographs, for example, you may also want to specify 
"black and white", "color", "sepia", and others.

There's also the "support material" - e.g. what is the image on:

a - Canvas
b - Bristol board
c - Cardboard/illustration board
d - Glass
e - Synthetic
f - Skin
g - Textile
h - Metal
i - Plastic
l - Vinyl
m - Mixed collection
n - Vellum
o - Paper
p - Plaster
q - Hardboard
r - Porcelain
s - Stone
t - Wood
u - Unknown
v - Leather

(Yes, the "skin" one is icky. I'm hoping it's a reference to animal skin.)

I don't see anything in the library data that refers to the type of 
paint or other medium. I can imagine photographers caring about the 
technology of a negative.

There is a huge amount of detail in the AAT thesaurus. You can see the 
attributes at:

http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=&logic=AND&note=&subjectid=300123559

This is clearly one of those areas where one needs to select a small 
number of commonly useful attributes, and punt the rest to a specialized 
vocabulary like the library vocabulary or AAT. These may not, however, 
provide a suitable view for visual arts items as products. I'm afraid I 
don't know where to go for that information. (As an example, different 
prices for framed and unframed posters.)

kc



>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:10:15 UTC