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

RE: Archive as a collection of things

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:19:55 +0000
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
CC: Sarah Romkey <sromkey@artefactual.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR06MB1290B73431647E8A6812515AD730@BLUPR06MB129.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
I like schema:ArchivalItem instead of schema:Artifact.

I don’t understand the subclass of schema:Intangible argument, though. The things in this class (which as you suggest could include books, cars, moon rocks, etc.) have the potential of falling off the shelf onto your foot? ☺

From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Young,Jeff (OR)
Cc: Sarah Romkey; public-architypes
Subject: Re: Archive as a collection of things

Like the direction of thought Jeff but see a couple of issues.

To use what you suggest with, say a Car that is in an archives, you would describe it as having multiple Types - schema:Car and schema:Artifact

In the separate ''How to describe things in an archive collection?" thread we are starting to identify properties that we would want to associate with something in an archives collection.  These I presume we would add to your suggested Artifact Type.  How would we then associate them with a CreativeWork?

So I would tweak your suggestion to not restrict it's coverage to non-CreativeWorks, maybe change its name to be more archives specific - ArchivalItem? - and use it to multi-type anything:

<myItem1>
   a schema:Book, schema:ArchivalItem
   schema:isPartOf <MyCollection>;

<myItem2>
   a schema:Car, schemaArchivalItem
   schema:isPartOf <MyCollection>;

My preference would also be to have such a type as a subtype of schema:Intangible as it is adding characteristics to a thing and is not a thing itself.

~Richard

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com

Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis

Twitter: @rjw

On 7 August 2015 at 14:48, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> wrote:
How about:

schema:Artifact
                a rdfs:Class;
                rdfs:subClassOf schema:Thing;
                rdfs:comment “a non-CreativeWork item held as part of a collection.”@en<mailto:“a%20non-CreativeWork%20item%20held%20as%20part%20of%20a%20collection.”@en>;
                .

If that’s plausible, then the domain/range for schema:isPartOf and schema:hasPart would presumably be updated to include it in addition to schema:CreativeWork.

Jeff

From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com<mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 7:04 PM
To: Sarah Romkey
Cc: public-architypes
Subject: Re: Archive as a collection of things

Giovanni touched on this in the other thread covering items in collections.

Re: CreativeWork: in addition to the examples that you raise Richard, there is a lot of content in archival collections which many would argue isn't "creative" in nature, such as data, governmental documents, etc. I would be glad to see us expand the hasPart idea beyond the scope of CreativeWork.

So will I.  Not sure that in the generic Schema.org world that you could argue that a government document is not a type of CreativeWork, but there are many other non-CreativeWork items that can be found in Archives.


Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 14:20:28 UTC

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