Re: Updated Schema Architypes Straw Man Proposal

As I think I’ve mentioned, there’s a group in the US that’s starting to work up some examples using the schema properties for our resources.  We had a meeting earlier this week and I wanted to mention a couple of things here for discussion.


·         We’re unclear what the difference between the URL and the @id property is.  If we have a URI for the collection, which schema property should we be using?  I’ll also mention that I’m still a bit confused about the URIs we’re using.  In the examples Richard posted, the URIs are URIs for the finding aid description of the collection, not the collection/object itself.  Should we make that clear somehow using a /#collection convention or something else?

·         We’d like a more specific definition of what an ArchiveItem is.  Archival description being as hierarchical as it is, we can’t figure out when we’d use ArchiveItem except perhaps for individual digitized objects.  Usually the lowest level in an archival description is a folder, which would be a collection of ArchiveItems.

·         We agree with others who have said that we need an extent property that conveys the size of the ArchiveCollection.  We’d want to use this at the collection/subcollection/item levels.

We’ve also done some mappings between schema and DACS/ISAAR-CPF/ISAD(G) and two archival management systems (ArchivesSpace and AtoM).  These are still a work-in-progress, but are open if anyone is interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jsPRML3BCkF4EdWTR4r2ooAw2iTndErLZlse0cs3Osk/edit#gid=0 .  Our impetus for doing so is that we hope to both use schema for front end interfaces as well as outputting archival description in LOD.  We realize that we will have to use other ontologies to fully express all of our metadata in LD, but we’re trying to see how far we can get with schema due to wide adoption of the namespace.

Elizabeth

___________________________
Elizabeth Russey Roke
Digital Archivist
Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, & Rare Book Library
404.727.2345 | erussey@emory.edu<mailto:erussey@emory.edu>

[cid:image001.png@01D2D53E.9E540200]


"The Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, & Rare Book Library collects and connects stories of human experience, promotes access and learning, and offers opportunities for dialogue for all wise hearts who seek knowledge.”

Read the Rose Library blog: https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/marbl/


Like the Rose Library on Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/emorymarbl


Follow the Rose Library on Twitter: https://twitter.com/EmoryRoseMARBL


From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:43 AM
To: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Cc: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Updated Schema Architypes Straw Man Proposal
Resent-From: <public-architypes@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:44 AM

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<mailto:owen@ostephens.com>> wrote:

On 18 May 2017, at 10:34, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk<mailto: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



________________________________

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).