Re: Archive as a collection of things

They have that food damaging capability regardless of if they are an
ArchivalItem or not.

What also making them ArchivalItems imparts is an archival context if you
will.

~Richard.

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 7 August 2015 at 15:19, 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.
>
>
>
>
>