Re: Archive as a collection of things

schema:ArchivalItem is generic enough that it could apply to born digital
materials, whereas schema:Artifact has a distinctly physical world ring to
it.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> 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? J
>
>
>
> *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> 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;
>
>                 .
>
>
>
> 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]
> *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.
>
>
>
>
>