W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-architypes@w3.org > July 2015

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:45:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz43oR+MZ9c5ho0cWnWgiCDBJ5GsU5tnpA8TL05KCcmuvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "GRACY, KAREN F" <kgracy@kent.edu>
Cc: "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>
Hi Karen,

Singular / plural term names have been a discussion since the early days of
Schema.org that eventually settled in favor of singular.

Yes, what is/isn't a creative work is definitely the subject for another
discussion, which we should start soon.


Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 27 July 2015 at 19:22, GRACY, KAREN F <kgracy@kent.edu> wrote:

>  I would be in support of adding Archive as a new subclass under
> schema:LocalBusiness.  There is the question of whether we should use the
> singular or pluralized version of the word (archive and archives are often
> used interchangeably).  The Glossary of Archival Records and Terminology
> (published by the Society of American Archivists) provides entries on each
> version (see http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archive and
> http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archives for Glossary
> definitions).
>  In my estimation, the more serious concern might be with classifying
> archival documents as Creative Works (but I will save my comments for that
> conversation!).
>  Karen
>  ***********************************************************
>  Karen F. Gracy
> Associate Professor
> School of Library and Information Science
> Kent State University
> kgracy@kent.edu
>  On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Richard Wallis <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>  This is the first of a few conversations we need to start in building
> towards some consensus around proposals
> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Main_Page>.
>  Prior to the setting up of this group Dan Scott proposed
> <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628> a new Schema.org type
> 'Archive':
>   In preparing to attend the LODLAM Summit 2015 (Linked Open Data for
> Libraries, Archives, and Museums), it is glaringly evident that we are
> missing a class to represent archives.
> The simplest possible place to start would be to parallel schema:Library
> <http://schema.org/Library> by subclassing schema:LocalBusiness
> <http://schema.org/LocalBusiness> with a definition such as "An entity
> that collects documents and records related to the activities of people or
> organizations."
>   This would enable us to describe archives as a specific class of
> LocalBusiness with schema.org, rather than having to use LocalBusiness
> directly.
>  This raised comments regarding the too commercial nature of the
> LocalBusiness definition, which could be enhanced to include something
> along lines that "businesses may also be not-for-profit or state-owned."
>  Are we happy to take on that proposal - do we have comments?
>  ~Richard
>   Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
>  Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>  Twitter: @rjw
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 18:46:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:28:58 UTC