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

Re: VisualArtwork Schema proposal reprise

From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:39:46 +0000
Message-ID: <52C460F2.4070105@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Hi Karen

The first use case (the one that prompted me to propose this) was for 
individual artists to use on their own websites (that's exactly where 
I'm planning to use it - currently using CreativeWork, which is OK, but 
too generic and lacking in specific properties.).

A Museum site would certainly use this. In my research I discovered that 
the Indianapolis Museum of Art already uses schema.org/CreativeWork - 
see example at 
http://www.imamuseum.org/collections/artwork/walpurgisnacht-night-witches-ary-stillman 
- but has introduced unofficial properties of "materials" and 
"dimensions" to schema.org/CreativeWork because of the lack of specific 
properties (on that page they are visible as <div class="value" 
itemprop="materials">oil on canvas</div> and<div class="value" 
itemprop="dimensions">24 x 28 in.</div>). They would be able to switch 
to the VisualArtwork schema and (with a few slight changes to their 
mark-up) have this data officially supported.

Yes, I can see this being used by an art criticism text that speaks 
about the painting. I think this works "out of the box".

Not so sure about a site selling reproductions (especially on coffee 
cups!) because I'm not sure whether the materials, surface, height, and 
width properties of VisualArtwork would refer to the 
materials/dimensions of the coffee cup or the original painting. And the 
"creator" of the cup is not the same person/organization as the 
"creator" of the painting.

For a coffee mug with a reproduction of a painting on it, I'd probably 
use http://schema.org/CreativeWork to describe the cup, with the 
"offers" property to describe price etc.,  and then have the "about" 
property ("The subject matter of the content") of the CreativeWork 
(coffee cup) be a VisualArtwork type detailing the painting reproduced 
on the cup. Theoretically it might be better to describe the cup with 
http://schema.org/Product, but Product has no "about" property or 
similar with which to reference the VisualArtwork.

I'll draw up some markup examples over the next few days for the various 
use cases and post them on the wiki.

By the way, there is a *very* extensive vocabulary for visual artwork in 
the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus - 
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/ - I've been using 
this in my own data. It covers nearly every conceivable material, 
surface, and type of artwork. Here's their page listing their top-level 
"types" of visual artwork: 
http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=painting&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300191091

Paul


On 01/01/14 17:59, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>


-- 

  * The Lazarus Corporation: www.lazaruscorporation.co.uk
    <http://www.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/>
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2014 18:40:12 UTC

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