Re: progressing VisualArtwork

>
> "My immediate feeling is that the existing Painting and Sculpture types
> should be marked as deprecated somehow "


The only thing about this proposal that really makes me feel uncomfortable
is the 'artform' property. It already has been established it's a
VisualArtwork, which by itself already is a classification.

Maybe we therefore could continue on the path of 'Classification' by having
Painting and Sculpture be subClasses of VisualArtwork?
This would also open up the possibility of adding more specific types like
Collage for example. Which would need a property/Value pair like:
[sourceMaterial/CreativeWork] (and I can come up with two or three more
easily).

Using 'additionalType' for further classification seems a bit too limited
for this. Not that there's anything wrong with using Productontology of
course but it would not provide any additional/specific properties. And I
know from experience that different artforms quickly require such
granularity.

The following use of 'artform > painting' just doesn't make sense to me:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/VisualArtwork">
    <link itemprop="sameAs" href="http://rdf.freebase.com/rdf/m.0439_q">
    <span itemprop="artform">painting</span>
    [...]
<div>

Yet we also have schema.org/Painting (& Sculpture & anything else that's
requested in the future), which as a subClass would prevent anything from
having to be deprecated and keeping current implementations valid. Heck, it
would even require less markup:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Painting">
    <link itemprop="sameAs" href="http://rdf.freebase.com/rdf/m.0439_q">
    [...]
<div>


*Jarno van Driel*
Digital Marketing Technologist

Tel: +31 652 847 608
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JarnovanDriel
Linkedin: linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/


2014-08-19 21:25 GMT+02:00 Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>:

> Hey Dan,
>
> My main concerns about mixing VisualArtwork with PeriodicalSeries.  (So I
> was suggesting yet another type...but...)
>
> In Freebase, we would probably throw a Incompatible Type Error when one is
> asserted against the other.
> In Schema.org, we do not have that luxury, and have hints and definitions
> to help developers make the right assertions during Multi-Typing.
>
> I agree that there are some "Artwork" attributes that need to be available
> to developers when dealing with ComicIssue.
> I disagree that there are some "VisualArtwork" attributes (as currently
> proposed) when dealing with ComicIssue.
>
> There is the distinction and fine line that I am drawing, but perhaps
> others do not share my distinction and have no worries.
>
> I would like to see VisualArtwork reserved to help me cut through the
> weeds later on against other Types.  (hence my concern with someone
> Multi-Typing those two if we do not have some warning or good definition
> boundaries set)
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:51PM -0500, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion is that many things are "Collectable" as artwork, i.e., "they
>>> are appreciated as having artistic value to the owner/seller."
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes, pretty much everything could be considered collectable. I
>> don't think that's the core set of attributes to worry about with
>> comics.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>