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

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:01:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmT-UCpofqmiVtnPiXTL=Ymm8wNBDZsk1cXs0c-=YWR-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Jones <majones1976@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com>, "Mark A. Matienzo" <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>, "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>
There is nothing stopping SOME individual Archives from also being
LocalBusiness - without imposing this on all Archives.

I don't want to make online archives like our own workflow archive (if
you like) http://myexperiment.org/ pretend to be a Local Business,
because to be honest I don't even know where our own service "is" - it
is currently hosted by University Oxford and Manchester in unison.



On 3 August 2015 at 10:19, Mike Jones <majones1976@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard et al.,
>
> Sorry for dropping into the conversation late. But what happens here if
> there are multiple outlets for a single archival organisation (multiple
> reading rooms)? The National Archives of Australia is one such example which
> in some ways is a single collection, but which has reading rooms in multiple
> states and territories.
>
> Would these be recorded separately? Would one need to be chosen as a
> 'parent' organisation or head office and the others related as subsidiaries?
> Or is there room for a conceptual parent? I ask because while I can see
> LocalBusiness working for individual reading rooms, where organisations have
> distributed outlets there seems to be another type of entity involved here -
> in addition to the specific outlets - which operates at a higher level.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Richard Wallis
> <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>
>> Both Ethan and Stian raise good points here.
>>
>> Many archives, along with the rest of the GLAM community of organizations,
>> are cultural heritage organizations operated by government, local &
>> national, or not for profit NGOs - but not all fall within those boundaries.
>> Some are commercial, or part of commercial, organizations.  Many do not open
>> to the public, but many do.
>>
>> An archive does not have to be physical, yet the organization that hosts
>> it, which is what we are discussing here, most likely does have a physical
>> presence:
>>
>> From Archive.org: please contact the Archive at info@archive.org or
>> Internet Archive, 300 Funston Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118, phone
>> 415-561-6767.
>>
>> Zenodo: Address European Organization for Nuclear Research, CH-1211 CERN,
>> Genève 23, Switzerland.
>>
>>
>> We have a matrix of organization types (commercial, government, not for
>> profit, cultural heritage, etc) and physical presence, or not, and
>> organizations as disparate as a local branch library/archive,
>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/, http://zenodo.org, to represent.
>>
>> Whatever compromise we come up with, it will feel not quite right to
>> someone in our community.
>>
>> How we proceed towards a consensus is greatly influenced by Schema.org,
>> the vocabulary we are [hopefully] proposing to extend, its style and
>> purpose.
>>
>> Schema is a general purpose vocabulary for describing things on the web -
>> to make those descriptions more readily understandable and discoverable in
>> the wider world, leading to them being more discoverable.  This has led to
>> 600+ types and 900+ properties being available where appropriate to describe
>> your resources.  This has resulted in defined Types inheriting properties
>> from super types that seem a little anomalous. An oft quoted example being
>> the Volcano Type inheriting faxNumber from Place.  When you look at the
>> documentation, that property does not make much sense when narrowly defining
>> a particular volcano. However it is only there as a potential term - if your
>> volcano does not have a fax, you don't need to use it.
>>
>> If we do create Archive as a subtype of LocalBusiness, users of the
>> vocabulary to describe their archive organization will be presented with a
>> collection of properties to use if and where appropriate.  If their
>> organization has opening hours, that will define them. If they do not open
>> to the public they will not. The same for address, etc.
>>
>> The semantic inferences of Type names and their descriptions is obviously
>> important as we build our proposals and I am fully in favour of proposing
>> enhancements to the description of the LocalBusiness Type to make it less
>> commercially focused - for the benefit of the whole vocabulary not just for
>> archives.
>>
>> We also have to consider the established use of the vocabulary
>> (LocalBusiness for example is already in use on between 500,000 - 1,000,000
>> domains) and the benefits for description and discovery in introducing new
>> types, especially super types, such as CollectingOrganisation, into the
>> vocabulary.
>>
>> Pragmatically, I believe we have an excellent chance of getting a proposal
>> to enhance the description of LocalBusiness accepted. Equally I believe we
>> will have great difficulty in justifying a proposal for a new super-type
>> that will mostly duplicate LocalBusiness.
>>
>> I am hoping where this group can add the most benefit and value is in
>> describing the actual archives, these organizations hold and manage, and
>> what they contain.
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>>
>> Richard Wallis
>> Founder, Data Liberate
>> http://dataliberate.com
>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>> Twitter: @rjw
>>
>> On 30 July 2015 at 10:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> -1 to  say an Archive is a kind of LocalBusiness.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the description:
>>>
>>> > A particular physical business or branch of an organization. Examples
>>> > of LocalBusiness include a restaurant, a particular branch of a restaurant
>>> > chain, a branch of a bank, a medical practice, a club, a bowling alley, etc.
>>>
>>> If anything, the name "LocalBusiness" is what is wrong. This just
>>> means an physical presence of an organization, like a shop, branch,
>>> office, venue - but in particular that is somewhat open for consumers
>>> (opening hours and payment options).
>>>
>>> This explanation still makes sense for a regular Library (even if it's
>>> not a Business), but not for say Pentagon, and I would argue not for
>>> many kinds of Archives.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does an Archive have to be physical? So https://archive.org/ and
>>> http://zenodo.org/ doesn't count - none of the LocalBusiness
>>> properties make sense there.
>>>
>>> I thought we were particularly also supporting digital archives here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Physical archives like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault has as a main
>>> feature that it is *not* open nor accessible and I don't see why this
>>> should come up as a LocalBusiness in Svalbard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.  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 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 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
>>> > 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.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Prior to the setting up of this group Dan Scott proposed 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 by subclassing schema: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
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab
>>> School of Computer Science
>>> The University of Manchester
>>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
>>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Jones
> http://www.mikejonesonline.com/



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 10:02:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:28:59 UTC