[uf-discuss] Re: work of art microformat

[Timothy Gambell]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the heads up on that one. I confused that part of last  
night's rough schema. In fact, the Source category is for a citation  
about where the information came from (as you recommend), and the  
Location category is intended for information about where the work of  
art is physically located. Dublin Core and VRA Core are in agreement  
on that one (and there are even some examples of Source vs. Location  
down at the bottom of the VRA Core page: http://www.vraweb.org/ 
vracore3.htm)

That said, since the source of the citation is a characteristic  
common to all citations, I'd be inclined to keep it out of the work  
of art microformat and instead try to get it included in the citation  
microformat.

Tim.

On Apr 14, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Greg Elin wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Have you considered adding a parameter or two indicating who  
> created the citation. Citations in the paper world (e.g.,  
> footnotes, endnotes) are locked into the document they exit.  
> Citations in the digital world can float freely -- that's the point  
> of microformats. Hence, it makes sense to track the pedigree of the  
> citation as well as the art itself.
>
> just a thought.
>
> Greg Elin
>
> On 4/14/06, Timothy Gambell <timothy.gambell at aya.yale.edu > wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for their thoughts, input, and contributions to
> the http://microformats.org/wiki/work-of-art project.
>
> Given the recommendations on the wiki and this list, it seems to me
> that it would be best to design work of art as a distinct group of
> optional additions to use with the citation microformat. Does this
> seem like a good idea?
>
> To address a few of the questions that have come up on the list:
>
> Why not just add to or merge with citation? Though -- as Ryan Cannon
> and Bruce D'Arcus point out -- works of art on websites are
> conceptually similar to book citations on websites, the museum
> community and the library community have developed different
> conventions for presenting information about their holdings. Since
> there isn't a 1:1 mapping between these conventions, combining
> citation and work of art would probably result in more complexity
> (for citation) and less descriptive utility (for work of art).
> However, I'd be interested to hear if the folks involved with
> citation think it would be an acceptable trade-off.
>
> Why not make work of art into a subsection of citation, as adr is to
> hCard? This might be a good idea, and it's one I'm open to, but it
> should be noted that while adr can express meaningful information on
> its own (that is, without the help of hCard), the proposed work of
> art extensions would rely on citation for core terms, and would not
> be able to express meaningful information without citation's help.
> Does that matter?
>
> For the sake of discussion, I've compiled a comparison between the
> terms in the citation strawman on the wiki and some of the terms that
> have been proposed for work of art.
>
> === Rough list new of terms we'd propose for work of art (contributed
> by Samantha Orme, tweaked by Tim) ===
>
> * creator (hCard)
> * creator-dates
> * creator-nationality
> * creator-role
> * creation-date (hCalendar)
>         * earliest-date
>         * latest-date
> * type (the style/period/genre of the work -- merged with "subject"
> into citation's "keywords" field?)
> * subject (the subject matter of the work -- merged with "type" into
> citation's "keywords" field?)
> * measurements ("format"? "dimensions"?)
>         * width
>         * height
>         * depth
>         * duration
> * medium
> * source ("Current Location"? "Repository"? "Owner"? "Collection"? --
> combined with location using hCard)
> * source-location (hCard or geo or adr)
> * provenance (perhaps a list of hCalendar events, could allow for
> "Gift Of" if that information isn't included in copyright or notes)
>
> === Rough list of terms we'd use from citation (compiled from the
> Mike Strawman) ===
>
> * title
> * subtitle
> * authors (as a special case of "creator")
> * publication date (though we'd prefer "date", and even better
> "earliest-date" and "latest-date")
> * link
> * uid (though we'd prefer the term "identifier")
> * pages (though this is only useful when the work of art is a book)
> * series (CDWA's "Related Work")
> * venue ("source" information could go here, depending on what's
> meant by venue)
> * publisher (occasionally useful)
> * container (CDWA's "Related Work")
> * abstract
> * notes (CDWA's "Descriptive Note" field)
> * keywords (potentially a combination of "subject" and "type")
> * image
> * copyright
> * language
>
> Again, thanks to everyone who has been involved with the work of art
> project.
>
> All best,
> Tim.
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>
>
>
> -- 
> Greg Elin
> http://fotonotes.net - Because photos have stories (TM)
> http://duhblog.com
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/attachments/20060414/60f6481b/attachment.htm