Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

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
> <info@archive.org> or Internet Archive, 300 Funston Ave., San Francisco, CA
> 94118, phone 415-561-6767 <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/