[Data-modeling] More fun with the visual art domain
Jeff Prucher
jeff at metaweb.com
Thu Mar 27 22:16:41 UTC 2008
I'll buy that.
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Faye Li
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] More fun with the visual art domain
>
> It reads a little funny because this page currently shows a
> single instance of art acquisition, in which the "date
> acquired" property isn't filled out but the "last date owned"
> is. Once more data is filled out, there should be no problem
> making sense of this page. I think it adds value.
>
> -- Faye
>
>
> Jeff Prucher wrote:
> > It's not so much the name that's weird as the actual
> property itself.
> > It makes very good sense in the context of art owners and artworks
> > (the date the owner last had title to the work; the date
> the work last
> > belonged to that owner), but really doesn't in the context
> of how the work was acquired.
> > We can certainly decide to live with this (we probably will), but I
> > don't think I've ever encountered this pattern before, and
> it seemed curious.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> >> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert Cook
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:52 AM
> >> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> >> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] More fun with the visual art domain
> >>
> >> I think reciprocal properties are almost always useful even if the
> >> name might end up being very awkward. It allows people to make
> >> queries without doing nutty type-reflect acrobatics.
> >>
> >> R
> >>
> >> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Jeff Prucher wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> If you think it would be of interest, it's easy enough to do.
> >>>
> >>> *waves magic wand*
> >>>
> >>> There. Have a look.
> >>>
> >>> I think the "date last owned" property makes less intuitive
> >>>
> >> sense on
> >>
> >>> this page than it does on the "art owner" and "artwork" pages.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://sandbox.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f8000000007bd1b9
> >> c
> >>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> >>>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Faye Li
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:53 PM
> >>>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] More fun with the visual art domain
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for putting this together, Jeff.
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you considered making the "Artwork-owner relationship" a
> >>>> reciprocated property of "Art acquisition" type? The CVT
> >>>>
> >> makes it a
> >>
> >>>> little awkward to picture what that will look like, but I think
> >>>> there's value in seeing, at a glance, all the artworks that are
> >>>> gifts.
> >>>>
> >>>> One of the trade-offs of having a single Artwork type for
> >>>>
> >> both unique
> >>
> >>>> artworks, edited artworks and editions of artworks is the
> >>>>
> >> confusing
> >>
> >>>> pair of properties "Edition of" and "Editions" that will
> >>>>
> >> be empty for
> >>
> >>>> 99% of all artworks. It will burn some primitives, but I
> think it
> >>>> might be worthwhile in the interest of cutting down confusion to
> >>>> insert the value of "None" for those 99% of artworks. It's also
> >>>> regrettable that you can't just query an "Edition" type
> to see all
> >>>> artwork editions, but have to query against the "Artwork"
> >>>> type for instances that have a value for property
> "Edition of". Oh
> >>>> well. I see the trade-offs and the reasons behind them.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll leave off my regular bits about CVTs not being
> >>>>
> >> search-friendly,
> >>
> >>>> as clearly the need outranks the compromised searchability here.
> >>>> Otherwise it looks good.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Faye
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff Prucher wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In response to a request on the visual arts discussion boards
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> (http://www.freebase.com/view/discuss/visual_art/artwork#/guid/
> >>>> 9202a8c
> >>>>
> >>>>> 040006 41f80000000072fa4ba), I've made some proposed
> >>>>>
> >> changes to the
> >>
> >>>>> artwork model, which I'd like to hear feedback on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are three changes:
> >>>>> 1) insertion of a CVT between artwork and location, to
> >>>>>
> >> track when a
> >>
> >>>>> piece has been where, and how long (insert standard
> >>>>>
> >>>> discussion about
> >>>>
> >>>>> time-series data here)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) insertion of a CVT between artwork and owner. This
> >>>>>
> >> includes not
> >>
> >>>>> only dates, but the method it was acquired (e.g.,
> purchase, gift,
> >>>>> bequest), and the purchase price
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) the addition of an "editions" property on artwork (and
> >>>>>
> >>>> the reverse
> >>>>
> >>>>> property, "edition of", as well). The idea here is to allow
> >>>>>
> >>>> Freebase
> >>>>
> >>>>> to display information about editions of a specific artwork
> >>>>>
> >>>> (such as
> >>>>
> >>>>> casts of a sculpture, or prints of a photograph), which may
> >>>>>
> >>>> have not
> >>>>
> >>>>> only different locations and owners, but also dimensions,
> >>>>>
> >>>> media, and
> >>>>
> >>>>> dates of creation. I decided to model edition simply as
> >>>>>
> >>>> "artwork" rather than "artwork edition"
> >>>>
> >>>>> because of the desire for museums and other art owners to
> >>>>>
> >> have only
> >>
> >>>>> one property describing their holdings; an "artwork
> edition" type
> >>>>> would have required two properties -- "artwork owned" and
> >>>>>
> >>>> "artwork editions owned"
> >>>>
> >>>>> which seemed unnecessarily clumsy. This does mean that
> >>>>>
> >> the abstract
> >>
> >>>>> version of the artwork and the individual edition will have
> >>>>>
> >>>> a number
> >>>>
> >>>>> of redundant properties, but my hope is that these can
> >>>>>
> >> just be left
> >>
> >>>>> blank. Naming of editions will be interesting, but that's
> >>>>>
> >>>> an issue every time we model them.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've entered some casts of "The Thinker" (in bronze and
> >>>>>
> >> plaster) on
> >>
> >>>>> sandbox for your perusal. (I put the proposed types in
> a private
> >>>>> domain, so all versions of The Thinker have both the original
> >>>>> "artwork" type and a type with only the proposed additions,
> >>>>>
> >>>> "artwork
> >>>>
> >>>>> (test)"; pretend, if you will, that all the properties are
> >>>>>
> >>>> one a single type. Let me know what you think.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Domain:
> >>>>> http://sandbox.freebase.com/view/domain/user/jeff/visual_art
> >>>>> Examples:
> >>>>> http://sandbox.freebase.com/view/en/the_thinker
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff Prucher
> >>>>> Type Librarian & Ontologist
> >>>>> Metaweb Technologies, Inc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Data-modeling mailing list
> >>>>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> >>>>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Data-modeling mailing list
> >>>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> >>>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Data-modeling mailing list
> >>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> >>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Data-modeling mailing list
> >> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> >> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Data-modeling mailing list
> > Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
More information about the Data-modeling
mailing list