- From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:29:33 +0100
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53F5052D.7020809@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
On 20/08/14 13:23, Jarno van Driel wrote:
>
> "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."
>
>
> Agreed that this does help keep it a lot simpler. I guess it depends
> on deciding how far schema.org <http://schema.org> should go in being
> able to express granularity. And let me be clear, I don't mind if it's
> decided that 'artform' is sufficient enough for this and that further
> specification isn't wanted/needed. As long as this is a clear decision.
And I very much value your input (all of which have been completely
valid design considerations) - the more discussion and analysis this
proposal gets, the better the final VisualArtwork type will be.
>
> "By using the artform property (which galleries and museums would
> probably populate from one of the existing controlled
> vocabularies)..." & "and is my preferred option as it allows
> easier mapping to other systems such as CDWA, VRA CORE, etc."
>
>
> If it's not too much to ask, could you please provide an example that
> shows how one can go about and map this to something like CDWA, VRA
> CORE, etc? I'd love to know how you'd go about this and maybe it also
> could be of value as an example on schema.org <http://schema.org> itself.
>
>
I'm at a training course away from home until the weekend, but I'll try
to get some examples of mappings (or at least better explanations of
them) posted on the wiki page by Monday evening if I can, and will post
to this list when I've done so.
I agree that documentation like that is important. I think content
publishers (I'm including myself here!) need a lot more of that sort of
explanation/documentation of how they can use schema.org beyond the
basic "follow these steps to get rich snippets in Google" SEO articles
which, while useful, are quite basic. I'd love to see more resources on
extending schema.org with Good Relations, Productontology, etc. and
other more advanced use cases. I've learnt a lot by being on this list
for the past 18 months, but I feel that I've barely scraped the surface
(and it would be nice to have everything indexed by topic on a website
somewhere).
Paul
>
>
>
>
> 2014-08-20 6:57 GMT+02:00 Paul Watson
> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk
> <mailto:lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>>:
>
> 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 <http://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/>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
* The Lazarus Corporation: www.lazaruscorporation.co.uk
<http://www.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/>
* The Lazarus Corporation Facebook Page:
www.facebook.com/lazaruscorporation
<http://www.facebook.com/lazaruscorporation>
* Twitter: twitter.com/lazcorp <http://twitter.com/lazcorp>
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:30:05 UTC