Re: Updated Schema Architypes Straw Man Proposal

Hi Richard,

Thanks! 

 I’ve realised a few of the things that threw me come down to the fact that you are referring to e.g. "Sound Recordings about Ronnie Barker” as an ‘Archive Collection' I would never refer to this as a 'Collection’, so any mention you made of Collection I assumed meant the top level, which in archival parlance is the Collection. The Audio Recordings are a “series”. But I can see you’ve called the Audio Recordings  #An Archive Collection, so I should have realised this. 

I can go with the idea that anything above an item is a collection for the purposes of schema.org, but its so not what I’m used to that I didn’t realise this is what you were doing. Archivists never really use the term “Collection” to mean part of a collection. 

> If we did use something like collectionSize then that would imply top level (collection level) 
> 
> Why would it imply anything other than the size of the ArchiveCollection being described, be it a sub-collection, a single collection, a collection containing sub-collections?

I assumed that if we used the term ‘collectionSize’ it would refer to a Collection for the reasons stated above, but you are saying it could refer to e.g. a series or a a sub-series, or in other words any group of archives being described. 

However, if we apply schema.org to descriptions of archives, it will be difficult to distinguish between “item” and anything that is more than one item (which you have called “collection”). If you use EAD you often just use <c> tags to nest the hierarchy and you don’t necessarily specify that something is an item - its just a child of the preceding unit of description.  Therefore, I think we would simply use #ArchiveCollection for any level of description unless we can identify that the unit being described is an item (or piece). So, we will end up with e.g. a single letter that is part of a large collection actually being an Archive Collection in terms of schema.org

Ha! The delights of archival hierarchy. 

> The example indicates that one of the archiveHeld (held, kept or maintained by) by the Archive organization (“V&A Theatre and Performance Collections”) is https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407 (The Ronnie Barker Collection).

Yep, that’s fine. Again, we might not use that, as we’d have to enter 100’s of URIs for collections held at the V&A, but of course it should be available to use. 

> It also indicates, using the location property of ArchiveCollection, that the Ronnie Barker Collection is located at the “V&A Theatre and Performance Collections” Archive.

Again, that’s clear to me. 

cheers,
Jane





> On 18 May 2017, at 16:43, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
> 
> To answer both Jane and Owen….
> 
> The semantics (no pun intended) I was trying to convey in my possibly contrived example was this:
>  • The AudioObject Sound recording of … My Grandfather’s Forehead ..
>   • Has a URI of https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8/3

>   • Is an ArchiveItem
>   • It is isPartOf an ArchiveCollection with the URI https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8

> 
>  • There is an ArchiveCollection with the URI https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8

>   • Which contains Sound Recordings about Ronnie Barker
>   • It hasPart https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8/3

>   • It is also partOf another ArchiveCollection with the URI https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407

>   • It could be considered as a sub-collection of that other collection
> 
>  • There is an ArchiveCollection with the URI https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407

>   • It contains other collections
>   • It contains an ArchiveCollection with the URI https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8

>   • It potentially does not directly contain individual ArchiveItems
> In this case the example ArchiveItem can be considered to be partOf the sub-collection <https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8> and, because that is also partOf the main collection, it is also partOf that as well.   For identifying and sharing the relationship using structured data however, it would not be necessary, and possibly even confusing for consumers, to explicitly assert that.
> 
> As I say, my example may be contrived to demonstrate the possibility of collections within collections.  
> 
> To answer Jane with regard to archiveHeld … 
> 
> The example indicates that one of the archiveHeld (held, kept or maintained by) by the Archive organization (“V&A Theatre and Performance Collections”) is https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407 (The Ronnie Barker Collection).
> 
> It also indicates, using the location property of ArchiveCollection, that the Ronnie Barker Collection is located at the “V&A Theatre and Performance Collections” Archive.  Although looking like the reverse of a similar relationship these two statements are defining different things.  Imagine for example that the “V&A Theatre and Performance Collections” Archive was responsible for the Ronnie Barker Collection, but it was housed at the British Museum. In such a case the location property becomes important. 
> 
> Finally, Jane:
>  If we did use something like collectionSize then that would imply top level (collection level) 
> 
> Why would it imply anything other than the size of the ArchiveCollection being described, be it a sub-collection, a single collection, a collection containing sub-collections?
> 
> 
> ~Richard.
> 
> 
> On 18 May 2017 at 10:48, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 18 May 2017, at 10:34, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> 4. However I concur that in such a case in practice it probably would not be practical to list all 500 in the JSON-LD insert on the collection page.   In such a case however use of isPartOf In the description of the ArchiveItem would be sufficient to assert the relationship to a search engine: 
>>> “isPartOf”: “https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8” (JSON-LD syntax)
>> 
>> Yes, that’s exactly my thinking. 
>> 
>> But it would be “isPartOf”: “https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407” (is part of the Ronnie Barker Collection
> 
> Trying to get this straight in my mind - would you describe the specific Item (https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8/3) as being part of:
> 
> a) the ‘sub-collection’ (https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8)
> b) the archive collection (https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407) 
> c) both
> 
> ?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 

Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.

Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 16:18:44 UTC