W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > August 2014

Re: progressing VisualArtwork

From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:54:42 +0100
Message-ID: <53F3B992.1040900@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 19/08/14 21:20, Jarno van Driel wrote:
>     "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 <http://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>

Hi Jarno,

My main concern about that suggestion is a practical one: I can think of 
30-40 different types of artform we'd need to create subClasses for off 
the top of my head (and I could list hundreds more if I start referring 
to the Getty CDWA or VRA Core) - maintenance would be a nightmare and 
we'd have a constant stream of new subClasses being proposed on this 
list for be added to schema.org.

By using the artform property (which galleries and museums would 
probably populate from one of the existing controlled vocabularies) we 
prevent an explosion of hundreds of new subClasses whilst still allowing 
the degree of precise classification that galleries and museums (and 
artists like myself) need.

I did consider your proposed approach back in early 2013 when I was 
formulating my ideas, and I alluded to it in my original email to this 
list proposing the VisualArtwork type in May 2013 

"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."

Also, having Painting and Sculpture as subClasses of VisualArtwork seems 
to me like keeping them for the sake of it - they don't have any 
additional properties over-and-above VisualArtwork. They served a 
purpose in the past, but I think that their purpose has been superseded 
and are probably due for retirement.



> *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/ 
> <http://linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/>
> 2014-08-19 21:25 GMT+02:00 Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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/>
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 20:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:34 UTC