Ontologies:
Linked Open Vocabularies – http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/ a collection of ontologies about all sorts. Godo reference point for linked data bits. The ‘thing’ that I develop needs to be linked and in a correct format (RDF?) so it is machine as well as human usable.
http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont is a media ontology but does not cover the data as a material description that I am after.
The dublin core metadata terms has a great range of terms to be used: http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/ I think that the data art set should use terms from this but in an easy to use list with vocabularies. This could be in the same format as the Getty stuff perhaps.
The key issue is that there are many many ontologies, taxonomies and vocabularies to use, and as data sits behind all of the areas at some point, it is hard to choose a labelling standard. The data art model is a suggestion for ensuring that some basic data properties are captured and noted at the delivery of the work.
Do I make a small ontology just specifically for use with Data as an Art Material? Or will a simple table suffice? Do the relationships matter? And how would an artist then use the ontology? How to get the artists and the cataloguer to use the same things – does it matter? is it the artists job, or would the curator/classifier do this?