Re: Archive as a collection of things

I agree- and if we're liking ArchivalItem, for consistency's sake, are we
liking ArchivalCollection ? I realize that discussion is in a different
thread but I agree with Giovanni's points on that matter. In addition to
the arguments already laid out by Giovanni, I feel this language is
consistent with how archivists and archives describe their holdings, which
counts for something I think.

Cheers,

Sarah

Sarah Romkey, MAS,MLIS
Systems Archivist
Artefactual Systems <http://artefactual.com>
604-527-2056
@archivematica <http://www.twitter.com/archivematica> / @accesstomemory
<http://www.twitter.com/accesstomemory>



On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:

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