- From: Guha <guha@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:43:07 -0700
- To: lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk
- Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-pc11jvsmmSf_uWLC=G4JDM73tBa3b5Rh09DpCJ+RjhQ@mail.gmail.com>
I agree. This is a good idea and a simple addition. If there aren't objections, we will include it in the next draft. guha On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Paul Watson < lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> 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/<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 22:43:34 UTC