Re: VisualArtwork Schema proposal reprise

Thanks, Paul. I think a couple more examples and a carefully worded 
definition will make all the difference.

With art work, especially analog art, the whole question of when one is 
speaking about the original and when one is referring to the surrogate 
or copy is always difficult. Perhaps sites selling reproductions might 
want to make use of some of the VisualArtwork properties, but presumably 
the difference between the original and reproduction will be clear 
within the context of the web page. It's a common problem, and one that 
I don't think we should try to solve within schema.org.

kc

On 1/1/14, 10:39 AM, Paul Watson wrote:
> 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/>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2014 20:49:26 UTC