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

Re: VisualArtwork Schema proposal reprise

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:59:07 -0800
Message-ID: <52C4576B.9010101@kcoyle.net>
To: lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Paul, can you say a bit more about use cases? You use the Mona Lisa as 
an example, and I can think of different situations where one might 
describe a particular painting:

- an instructional site on art history
- a museum site, stating what they have on display
- an auction house listing what they have for sale

Those refer to the original. Would you also use this schema for:

- an online site that sells reproductions of art works (posters, coffee 
cups with the art on it, etc.)
- an art criticism text that speaks about the painting

I heartily agree that the creation of separate classes for each type of 
visual resource does not scale, so gathering them into a single class 
with an open-ended ability to define types makes much more sense.

BTW, the library standard calls this "non-projected graphic" (we aren't 
known for our user-friendly terminology) and you can see a list of the 
types and materials here:

http://loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd007k.html

I don't recommend following the library practice, just that I think it 
supports your approach.

kc


On 1/1/14, 6:18 AM, Paul Watson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd really like to push for the VisualArtwork Schema proposal, which I
> proposed in May last year, to be formally adopted as soon as possible in
> 2014.
>
> The wiki version is at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/VisualArtwork,
> which contains an additional suggestion from another contributor to this
> list for a colorPalette property (which is a new Schema type, but I
> don't think the contributor ever added a draft for the colorPalette type
> on the wiki yet).
>
> Since the colorPalette type hasn't been drafted up by the person who
> suggested it, I would be quite happy to go ahead without it. In the
> discussions on this list there didn't seem to be any enthusiasm for it
> (apart from the person who proposed it).
>
> The draft RDFS/RDFa schema file at
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext/visualartwork.html
> is a little out-of-date:
>
> * I have renamed the "materials" property as "material" in the wiki, in
> line with Schema.org naming conventions
> * I have renamed the "edition" property as "artEdition" in the wiki, for
> disambiguation with any other use of the word "edition"
> * I have updated the descriptions of the properties in line with
> suggestions on this list in July/August 2013
>
> I'm not familiar with either RDFS or Mercurial, so am hesitant to try to
> edit the RDFS/RDFa schema file myself - it would be great if someone
> more experienced with the technologies could do so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2014 18:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:20 UTC