Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

There is a thread in the Schema.org github
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628>, where this was first
raised.

I have reflected the proposals from that into the Architypes Wiki
<https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Main_Page#Proposals>, which
are:

   - As per thread in schema.org github issues
   <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628>:
      - Archive to be new subtype of LocalBusiness - as per Library
      <http://schema.org/Library>
      - Description: "Institution with archival holdings. An organization
      which keeps and preserves archival material and makes it
accessible to the
      public."
      - Propose change to LocalBusiness description to include: "businesses
      may also be not-for-profit or state-owned"


~Richard

On 28 July 2015 at 12:25, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ingrid,
>
> Thoughts inline below
>
> ~Richard
> On 28 July 2015 at 01:40, Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kaching!
>>
>> My 2c (apologies upfront, I wasn't in the discussion at LODLAM in case
>> this got worked over) and I'm looking at Schema.org for the first time
>> properly.  Feel free to point me to some background reading and to resist
>> opining.
>>
>
> Best place to start is Schema.org  and the FAQ
> <http://schema.org/docs/faq.html>.  You will see from these that
> Schema.org is a general purpose vocabulary (currently of 600+ Types and
> 900+ properties) for describing things on the web - I would add the
> implicit '*so they can be discovered*'.  These aims - describing things
> and for discovery - result in a certain uncomfortable reaction for those
> new to it.  Such as books having a name not a title, Volcano
> <http://schema.org/Volcano> having the ability to define a faxNumber, and
> your concerns about LocalBusiness.
>
>
>> But.. I am having a reaction to the suggestion that an archive or library
>> operates as a subclass of LocalBusiness.
>>
>
> Do not read too much into type name of LocalBusiness.  It is just a useful
> way to combine the properties from Place and Organization plus openingHours
> (see this pre-release view of Library <http://webschemas.org/Library>
> which shows the type inheritance better)
>
>
>> What's the purpose here?  To share information about the GLAM group
>> entity or its collection/archival material or both?  I'm wagering both and
>> that they need to be treated separately.
>>
>
>> Archives (as group entity) sit within diverse organisation types.
>> Archives (as material that emerges from activities).
>>
>> Same goes for libraries and library collections.
>>
> The purpose of the potential archive.schema.org extension is to share
> information about:
>
>    - An archive organization with a physical/virtual presence (address,
>    parentOrganization, department(s), openingHours etc.)
>       - Organizations such as The National Archives
>       <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/>
>       - Organizations of all types - commercial, not for profit,
>       government, etc.
>       - Organizations could add this to their other descriptive types
>       e.g. An organization could be a Library AND an Archive
>    - An archive - an archived collection of things
>       - Ownership/responsibility not necessarily associated with an
>       organization that declares itself an Archive.
>    - Things within an archive
>       - Including but not restricted to creative work
>
> This discussion thread is focussed on the first of these.
>
>>
>> Could not a CollectingOrganisation entity be a type of Organisation?
>>
>
> It could be, but I'm not sure what extra value/properties would be gained
> by this move - we would still need to add in most of what comes from
> LocalBusiness.
>
>
>>
>> Rather than CreativeWork, perhaps HeritageObject or something equally
>> stretchy to encompass diverse GLAM collection materials.
>>
>
> This will be the subject of another, I expect long, thread about what is
> unique about things in an archive that we want to share and help make them
> discoverable.
>
>
>>
>> Ingrid (Canberra)
>>
>> *GLAM being galleries, libraries, archives, museums
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 July 2015 at 09:24, Mark A. Matienzo <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Richard, all -
>>>
>>> As noted on my comments the proposal on Github [0], I'm in favor of this
>>> proposal. I also made a suggestion that we defer to the ICA-ISDIAH [1]
>>> definition (i.e., an "archive" in this sense as an institution with
>>> "archival holdings," rather than the stuff itself).
>>>
>>> [0]
>>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628#issuecomment-125371578
>>> [1] http://www.ica.org/10198/standards/isdiah
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark A. Matienzo <mark@matienzo.org> | http://anarchivi.st/
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Richard Wallis <
>>> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Richard Wallis
>>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>>>> http://dataliberate.com
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>