Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Always partition the "artwork" part of an object? #185

Open
azaroth42 opened this Issue Sep 5, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@azaroth42
Copy link
Collaborator

azaroth42 commented Sep 5, 2018

In order to be consistent, we should consider always partitioning the "artwork" part of an object out from the rest of it. For example, at the moment if we want to say a painting is "oil on canvas", then the painting as a whole is made of oil paint, and the support part is made of canvas. We have already de-conflated the object from the visual item ... we could further separate the artwork part from the whole.

Beyond consistency, this is potentially important for inferencing and rolling up assertions. If the artwork part is paper and watercolors, the support is canvas, the frame is oak and oil paint ... then the object is made of all five materials, but the artwork only of paper and watercolor.

It also means that the number of P2 references defined on the main object will be reduced -- the shape and color of the artwork would go on the physical artwork part, rather than the main object. The artwork part would then show the artwork image.

It adds complexity, but also adds some value in the real world when applied to existing data.

@azaroth42

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

azaroth42 commented Jan 29, 2019

The complexity pays off with digital, where the digital image digitally_carries the same visual item as the physical object.

@cbutcosk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cbutcosk commented Jan 30, 2019

If this were made a requirement, what would the default case of an (intellectually) unpartionable object look like? There are plenty of objects that can't be split in this way, either materially or cases where the artwork's content troubles the figure/ground distinction.

@workergnome

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

workergnome commented Jan 30, 2019

I think an object could easily have a single part, which is the whole thing. To me, this is the "object vs. array" complexity question, just a level of abstraction up.

@cbutcosk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cbutcosk commented Jan 30, 2019

Ah, that's really clarifying, thanks. I think the sub-part of interest being aat:artwork is what trips me up here--many registrars would think that a pretty cheeky act of classification where recto/verso, etc are not. "MMOs for things we collect as art are aat:artwork" uses the casual classifications already in use, but "only the oil and canvas are aat:artwork" feels pretty alien in that context.

@natuk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

natuk commented Mar 13, 2019

Yes, I agree that it would be a bit strange to consider a bit of the object as "artwork" and not the rest. In conservation there are cases when the paint layer is removed from one support and put on another (e.g. when the original support is damaging the paint layer), but the understanding is that the original support is part of the artwork and that the process is destructive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.