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

Re: progressing VisualArtwork

From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 05:57:27 +0100
Message-ID: <53F42AB7.6080002@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 19/08/14 22:35, Jarno van Driel wrote:
>
>     "maintenance would be a nightmare and we'd have a constant stream
>     of new subClasses being proposed"
>
>
> If hundreds are to be added than I'd consider this to be a very valid 
> point of view. But is really to be expected?
> The same thing has been brought up about Organization and it's 
> subClasses as well but somehow there aren't a lot of requests for new 
> subClasses of Organization coming through here. Something I think a 
> property like 'additionalType' helped prevent. Especially for those 
> types which don't need new properties. For those [Organization > 
> additionalType > Productontology] works quite satisfactory.

That's one way of doing it. The other is to the take example of 
schema.org/Book which has a genre property which accepts a text string 
instead of having a plethora of subClasses such as ScienceFictionBook, 
FantasyBook, Romance, LiteraryFictionBook, Western, Thriller, 
ReferenceBook, Textbook, Biography, etc. This enables a wide range of 
types of book to be marked up without the need to maintain a lot of new 
subClasses, and is my preferred option as it allows easier mapping to 
other systems such as CDWA, VRA CORE, etc.

>
> So if acceptance of new subClasses of VisualArtwork would be limited 
> to those that need additional values, wouldn't that help keep the 
> amount of types needed/expected reasonable?

I'd note that the existing Painting and Sculpture types don't have any 
additional properties, so what would be the premise for having them as 
subClasses?

>
>     "They served a purpose in the past, but I think that their purpose
>     has been superseded and are probably due for retirement."
>
>
> Oh, that very well could be, I haven't got any numbers at my disposal 
> which show if these two types are published a lot or not. That's 
> something I don't dare to burn my fingers on. But maybe somebody else, 
> who does have access to those kinds of numbers (let's say one of the 
> sponsors for example) could provide some info to help decide whether 
> depreciation is a valid option or not. ?

Certainly some numbers would help!


>
>
> 2014-08-19 22:54 GMT+02:00 Paul Watson 
> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk 
> <mailto:lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>>:
>
>     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 <http://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
>     (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013May/0024.html):
>
>     "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.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Paul
>
>
>>
>>
>>     *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 Wednesday, 20 August 2014 04:57:58 UTC

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