But for that Życzliwek must be an item first and which is why I stated the question.
Yep, that works. Thanks a lot.
It’s because I don’t view Wrocław’s dwarfs or Buddy Bears as their separate theme or motif. They’re instances of a motif (instances of an instance of motif) but not instances of motif themselves.
The Wikidata item description says “Displayed together” which in my understanding means that they’re located somewhere close to each other, no? This is part of the reason why I deleted the attribute from Wrocław’s dwarfs instead of leaving it with the qualifier nature of statement: almost always (because there are a couple dwarfs that are not figurines).
Also since group of scriptures is subclass of ensemble of works of art, won’t that make the latter a more generic tag, when we want to be as specific as possible?
What’s the meaning of the tag and was it perhaps discussed before use? @dieterdreist do you know anything about it?
In my mind, I group was going to be a tag for grouping anything that doesn’t fit brand or network or maybe operator. It seems like heritage buildings are also to be grouped. But is it really that these are the only two types of objects that would need such tag for grouping? In this case we might indeed just make something along the lines of what you suggested.
*group= is a vague word, unintuitive and not self-explanatory for what extent it should be used for. *series is closer, similar to an artist’s “series” of works. I don’t see where your definition of “series” requiring to be “ordered” or numbered is justified. It’s more consequential from the creator making them sequentially, resulting a natural order, not artificially imposed to organize them.
A better reason would be they aren’t made and installed by the same creator, including groups of people, and organizations. However, it’s below the level of an art movement.
You’re right, that’s an unfortunate similarity of the names. My ‘group’ is from Wikidata’s “group of visual artworks” which doesn’t require proximity (though it does go together often). Where there is proximity it would be called an ‘ensemble’.
That’s why it I want to document it so there’s no confusion.
I also didn’t like it at first but I cannot think of a better option.
Anyone can commission a dwarf of their own from a number of different artists, not just one and place it anywhere they want. Can that still be considered a series?
Anyone can commission a dwarf of their own from a number of different artists, not just one and place it anywhere they want. Can that still be considered a series?
IMHO a “series” requires either to come from the same artist (or group), or from the same “publisher”/editor or some other kind of coordination. Just dealing with the same subject but being otherwise unrelated isn’t really a series.
I also agree that a group has to be spatially close to each other (individual parts relating to each other), figurines scattered around a whole city don’t meet this requirement.
The effect is you would block the use of sculpture:group= for connected groups (regardless of whether it should be used, when that’s not discussed here), and cause conflicting definitions. Better be more specific, and cautious with these generic attributes, while they are more useful.
“Motif” was mentioned above. Or it can be a “phenomena” too? In all seriousness, is it a physical “meme”?
group of visual artworks says set of visual artworks grouped by collection, location, culture, etc., so not necessarily location.
But why? The definition of a group doesn’t mention this. (it doesn’t even have to be this definition)
What do you mean by block? And what is sculpture:group used for? A group of sculptures is tagged as one artwork_type=sculpture/statue/figurine node (or area). I would also propose artwork_type=ensemble + ensemble=sculpture/statue/figurine. Alternatively, it could be mapped as a relation grouping the nodes such as type=collection or type=ensemble.
Wrocław’s dwarfs are one but it doesn’t make sense as a grouping tag.
It was also mentioned why it’s not a good idea.
I marked Wrocław’s dwarfs as a group of visual artworks on Wikidata, not anything else. If it’s wrong, then let me know but I don’t see any better alternative for the tag. Especially since group or artwork_group is not taken or has a conflicting meaning. Do any of you have a better idea for a general grouping tag like brand or network?
Unfortunately, we might be dealing with homonyms even in plain English. The other discussion goes into the weeds about whether a single sculpture depicting multiple figures could be considered a group, based on commonly accepted definitions in the art world. I think the Wikidata item you latched onto is a distinct concept that a Wikidatan just called a “group” for lack of a better term.
A collection can be united by any number of aspects: artist, manufacturer, theme, material, size, vintage, location, history, current owner, etc. Often it’s a combination of facets that individually would be silly to think of as a single collection, such as the muffler men or the Cincinnati Street Gas Lamps.
Some collections are so sparse with such a tenuous connection that we probably wouldn’t tag them as anything at all. Others are notable enough for OSM because someone encountering a member of the collection would immediately recognize it. We have specific terms for some kinds of collections, or we could even model them as a single artwork_type=installation. But not in this case.
Which aspects unite the collection of Wrocław dwarves? So far I know about the size, depicted subject (generally speaking), and location (generally speaking). That’s enough to call it a collection, but maybe not enough to have a more specific term for the kind of collection.
That item is about a museum collection, which would usually be confined to a particular space. I was thinking more along the lines of an art collection (Q7328910), which isn’t necessarily in one place. If we avoid terms such as genre, theme, motif, meme, or phenomenon, then we’re left with even more generic words that suffer from naming collisions, terms that mean different things depending on context. I’m tempted to suggest artwork_set=* to imply as little intentionality as possible.
We certainly can’t expect a one-to-one match with Wikidata classes. Wikidata’s data model allows for a much more nuanced ontology than our primary feature tags, with overlapping concepts that partially apply and instances of multiple simultaneous classes, all depending on the cited source. Even so, they’d be having exactly the same debate as us if you were to propose a new property suitable for the value Wrocław’s dwarfs (Q910242).
I don’t know about that. “Set of purposefully gathered artworks” sounds like it’s gathered in one place more or less.
By Wikidata, a group is a set with discreteness so once again, set is a more generic term than group.
In my opinion that group of sculptures which the other discussion was about, should be tagged as a sculpture ensemble or collection because a group does not have to be all in one place.
But honestly, since people already regard groups as being in one place and there already are uses of artwork_type=sculpture_group, I guess artwork_set=Wroclaw's dwarfs might work.
“Set” was already defined as related to “group” sculptural set - Wikidata brand= and network= were discussed, but how about using slightly different meaning artwork:brand= / artwork:network= ? identity= / character= for what they are?
This item looks very weird to me in terms of the statements and name(s). I think it should basically have the same statements as group of sculptures.
So, once again, network implies a strong connection between particular items and usually ordering. Using brand is a stretch of the tag and artwork:brand doesn’t change it too much.
Also keep in mind that ideally there should be one scheme that can be used on Wrocław’s dwarfs, their clones by other cities, Buddy Bears, etc. so a universal tag for all of them is the goal.
