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 23:31:52 +0100
Message-ID: <518980D8.4000304@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Karen, I think the library list of "what type of image is it" is what I 
had in mind for the 'artform' property. I guess the choice of a 
controlled vocabulary is up to the user - I've been working my way 
through VRA CORE 4 (http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/) but the 
AAT could equally be used.

For galleries, museums, and artists, the sub-type of artform (e.g. oil 
painting as opposed to watercolour) is important - this is what I have 
proposed the "materials" property for. And the accompanying "surface" 
property is what you've called - perhaps more eloquently - "support 
material".

These are often used together, and are typically expressed in the format 
of "Oil on Canvas", "Watercolour on Paper", etc.

A real world example can be seen in the panel on the right hand side on 
the Wikipedia pages for most paintings - for example 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa  (in this case, "Oil on poplar"). 
Another real world example is from the MOMA website: 
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=80581 ("Oil on canvas").

As for visual arts items as products - there's an existing "offers" 
property in CreativeWork that would probably be immediately usable, and 
since the proposed VisualArtwork type extends from CreativeWork then 
this "offers" property would be automatically inherited by VisualArtwork.

On 07/05/13 23:09, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:32:21 UTC

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