- From: Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:18:11 +0100
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Richard,
thank you for emphasizing the two points--they clarify the scope of this
initiative.
Also, you are right, in this Interest Group there are people belonging
to the archival community---I just wanted to highlight that the proposal
hasn't been adequately analyzed and discussed, so my comment was on the
one hand a sort of encouragement for me and my colleagues to engage in
the discussion, on the other hand a suggestion for all of us not to
consider this a stable draft model. So, I guess we are on the same page.
I will immediatly ask for feedback to many colleagues around the
world--as I wrote, I should be able to provide some analytical comments
by the end March.
As it regards LODLAM, I totally agree. I'm not sure I can join (assumed
seats are still available), but I would love to meet and discuss these
topics with you and the other members of this list.
Giovanni
Il 14/02/2017 17:43, Richard Wallis ha scritto:
> Giovanni,
>
> Thank you for you comments and capturing the sequence of previous events.
>
> Viewing the participants
> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/participants> of the community,
> there are many from “the archival community”. I wouldn’t consider the
> proposal as frozen but one that for some reason the community did not
> engage around in either a positive or negative manner.
>
> For a potential way forward for understanding how to describe archives
> and their contents using the Schema.org vocabulary for sharing with
> search engines, it is the only source I am aware of. Unsurprisingly it
> is therefore where this new activity started.
>
> I welcome the discussion around the proposal, in the hope that we will
> eventually get enough of a consensus amongst those motivated to
> participate to enable a well formed proposal to be made to the wider
> Schema.org community.
>
> I would suggest that your colleagues in the archival community be
> encouraged to join the community and participate in the discussion to
> arrive at a potentially even better result. As to your point about a
> fundamental stakeholder, that would be entirely welcome. Any proposal
> from any community carries far more weight when such a
> committed implementer is behind it.
>
> To those new to this discussion I would emphasise two points
>
> 1. The objective is to arrive at proposal(s) to enhance and or extend
> the Schema.org vocabulary to enable it to be used for the
> description of archives and their contents to improve
> their discovery on the web. It is not to create a new, or replace
> established, ontologies used for the management of those resources.
>
> 2. The proposal we are discussing is an initial example not a completed
> proposal. To quote the first lines of the wiki page:
> “/This page contains a description of an initial model for a
> proposed Archive extension for the schema.org <http://schema.org>
> vocabulary. Almost by definition significant parts of this will be
> wrong. However, as its purpose is to stimulate and assist discussion
> as a full proposal evolves, that is not necessarily a bad thing/.”
>
> Finally can I suggest that this might be a great topic for the LODLAM
> 2017 Summit <https://summit2017.lodlam.net> in Venice.
>
> ~Richard.
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
> On 14 February 2017 at 16:20, Giovanni Michetti
> <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca <mailto:giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> this exploratory model was presented about 18 months ago. There has
> been some discussion on some very specific points in July and August
> 2015, and then there has been no further discussion or action. So my
> understanding - based also on the comments posted in 2015 - was that
> the proposal had been let die, or at least frozen.
>
> The proposal has now been revived, as far as I see. If that's the
> case, please consider that the archival community may have something
> to say about it--from what I remember, there are quite a number of
> issues with this extension.
>
> In short, I would suggest 1) to consider this as a frozen model that
> needs some further deep discussion before implementation, and 2) to
> search for greater involvment of the archival community, if you want
> this initiative to be shared and agreed by one fundamental stakeholder.
>
> If you confirm that you want this initiative to go ahead, I'll try
> and involve a number of colleagues in the archival community, in
> order to provide a detailed analysis of the model, which will
> require some time though--I may dare to say end of March.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> Il 14/02/2017 16:33, Richard Wallis ha scritto:
>
> Yes - this proposal was published well over a year ago and
> Schema has
> moved on since then.
>
> We will need to review it in context of the upcoming 3.2 release.
>
> Thanks @danbri for the comment about MTEs and additionalType.
>
> In jsonld you would see:
>
> {
> “@context”: “http://schema.org”',
> “@type”: [“Map”, “ArchivedItem”],
> “name”: “An Old Map of Interest”,
>
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
> Twitter: @rjw
>
> On 14 February 2017 at 15:28, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com
> <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
> <mailto:owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>>> wrote:
>
> I think the other point is that at the moment the definition
> on http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem>
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem>> says “An item
> in an archive collection.” which is misleading (IMO at
> least). Just
> having a look around it looks like this text also appears on
>
> http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/CurationEvent
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/CurationEvent>
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/CurationEvent
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/CurationEvent>>
>
> Both these need updating to accurately reflect the proposal.
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
> <mailto:owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>>
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 14 Feb 2017, at 14:53, Richard Wallis
> <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com
> <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com
> <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>>> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Over the las few days there has been the following
> discussion on
> Twitter:
>
> *adrianstevenson*
> @rjw We’ve had heads down getting new @archiveshub
> system out. Now
> hoping to implement schema, but unsure how best to do
> @edsu @danbri
> 09/02/2017, 15:09
>
> <https://twitter.com/adrianstevenson/status/829708866829025280
> <https://twitter.com/adrianstevenson/status/829708866829025280>>
>
> *adrianstevenson*
> @rjw Perhaps something for #lodlam17 ?but was hoping to move
> sooner if poss @edsu @danbri @archiveshub
> 09/02/2017, 15:10
>
> <https://twitter.com/adrianstevenson/status/829709180676227072
> <https://twitter.com/adrianstevenson/status/829709180676227072>>
>
>
> *janestevenson*
> @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw Looking into it now. Def want
> implement something, prob quite simpe. Don't get why
> ArchivedItem
> is 'intangible'?
> 14/02/2017, 08:21
>
> <https://twitter.com/janestevenson/status/831418032727740417
> <https://twitter.com/janestevenson/status/831418032727740417>>
>
>
> *edsu*
> @janestevenson maybe start by trying to express what you
> need in
> your specific context, instead of trying to model all
> archives?
> 14/02/2017, 13:51
> <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831501086343229440
> <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831501086343229440>>
>
> *ostephens*
> @janestevenson ArchivedItem currently mixes two ideas by
> the look
> of it @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:02
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831503916282044416
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831503916282044416>>
>
> *ostephens*
> @janestevenson on the wiki w3.org/community/arch
> <http://w3.org/community/arch>
> <http://w3.org/community/arch>… it is defined as a
> ‘type’ you
> could apply to other Things @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:03
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504151146295297
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504151146295297>>
>
>
> *ostephens*
> @janestevenson in that context intangible is right -
> because it is
> a type/status of an item not an item itself
> @adrianstevenson @edsu
> @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:04
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504331803332609
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504331803332609>>
>
> *ostephens*
> @janestevenson but on
> archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem>
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem>> it is
> defined as ‘an item in an archive collection’
> @adrianstevenson
> @edsu @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:06
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504797442441216
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504797442441216>>
>
>
> *ostephens*
> @janestevenson which definitely seems in contradiction
> to wiki
> defn & being intangible @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:06
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504883656380416
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504883656380416>>
>
> *ostephens*
> @janestevenson so basically I agree its confusing and
> wrong in at
> least one place at the moment! @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:09
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831505555931947008
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831505555931947008>>
>
>
> *edsu*
> @ostephens @janestevenson @adrianstevenson @rjw seems to
> me that
> membership in an archival collection should be enough.
> 14/02/2017, 14:19
> <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831508234057953281
> <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831508234057953281>>
>
>
> *ostephens*
> @edsu +1 @adrianstevenson @janestevenson @rjw
> 14/02/2017, 14:20
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831508365100605440
> <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831508365100605440>>
>
> *rjw*
> @ostephens @janestevenson @adrianstevenson @edsu In proposal
> adding ArchivedItem as additionalType provides access to
> archive
> relevant props
> 14/02/2017, 14:22
> <https://twitter.com/rjw/status/831508940907241472
> <https://twitter.com/rjw/status/831508940907241472>>
>
>
>
> To continue……..
>
> The logic behind the proposal for ArchivedItem
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem>> is as
> follows:
>
> * Any type of /thing/ could be in an archive.so
> archive specific
> attributes cold not be expected to be added to a
> single Type.
>
> * Using the Schema.org <http://Schema.org> practice of
> Multi-Typed Entities (MTEs) those archive specific
> properties
> can be attached to a qualification type - Archived
> Item in
> this case.
>
> * To indicate a Thing (Book, ImageObject, Vehicle) is in
> an archive the ArchivedItem type is added as
> an additionalType. This gives access, in addition
> to the
> normal properties for the type in question, to the
> archive
> specific properties, to use to markup the item.
>
> * The question then is which Type to make ArchivedItem
> a subtype of?
> o /CreativeWork/, /Product/, etc. would be too
> specific
> o /Thing/ would be a possibility. However in
> Schema.org
> <http://Schema.org> only the highest level types
> become a
> subtype of /Thing/.
> o That leaves /Intangible
>
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/Intangible
> <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/Intangible>>/.
> Already has a collection of subtypes with
> similar issues.
>
> So the outcome is the proposal in the Wiki as represented
> on ado-archive.appspot.com
> <http://ado-archive.appspot.com>
> <http://ado-archive.appspot.com/
> <http://ado-archive.appspot.com/>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com <http://dataliberate.com/>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>>
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 17:17:19 UTC