Re: Archive as a collection of things

Agree.

On 7 August 2015 at 15:28, Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>