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

RE: Proposal: VisualArtwork

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:48:26 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5913D30F66@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>, <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I've been using the Product Ontology for these kinds of things as an
additional type to schema:CreativeWork.


This is based on Wikipedia, so there are some cases that don't work out
ideally like "Photographic_printing" instead of "Photographic_print".
Nevertheless, I am pleased much more often than I am disappointed. It
would also be nice to hear the general Schema.org community encouraging
the use of the Product Ontology more vocally.

I agree that having a general purpose VisualArtwork class with these
extra properties would be nice, though. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Watson [mailto:lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:42 PM
> To: public-vocabs@w3.org
> Subject: Proposal: VisualArtwork
> Hi,
> This is a proposal for a new Type: Thing > CreativeWork >
> 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
> 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 Wednesday, 8 May 2013 14:49:29 UTC

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