RE: Proposal: VisualArtwork

We coined a few classes in the http://purl.org/library vocabulary awhile
back to fill in some gaps for the WorldCat.org Linked Data at the time.
Most of those will get deprecated in favor of www.productontology.org
classes. It opens up a whole new world. 

If catalogers aren't happy with quirky and inconsistent material types
in various forms of library data, they should sign up as Wikipedia
authors. Then they should wonder why we need to continue with the quirky
and inconsistent lists.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hepp [mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk; public-vocabs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal: VisualArtwork
> 
> Addendum:
> 
> I personally see the long-term relationship between
> www.productontology.org and schema.org as follows:
> 
> 1. www.productontology.org serves as incubator for missing yet popular
> types: if a certain www.productontology.org type is used extensively
in
> schema.org markup, it will make sense to add it to schema.org
directly.
> A hot candidate is
> 
>     http://www.productontology.org/id/Video_game
> 
> It is in fact requested so frequently that we have a special caching
> mechanism in place to cater for the many requests per second.
> 
> 2. www.productontology.org will also serve as a uniform URI schema for
> types on the long-tail, so that site-owners can send very specific
type
> information to any kind of RDFa- or Microdata-aware application, even
> if that type is below the threshold for standardization.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> On May 8, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 
> > I've been using the Product Ontology for these kinds of things as an
> > additional type to schema:CreativeWork.
> >
> > http://productontology.org/id/Sculpture
> > http://productontology.org/id/Photograph
> > http://productontology.org/id/Collage
> > etc.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----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 >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> 
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
> 
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:59:59 UTC