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

Re: Archive as a collection of things

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:27:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz7Z3qfe3MMNf0N4z2EVWtOm8kPSizj0KRpYLTy5X1Ci6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sarah Romkey <sromkey@artefactual.com>
Cc: Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
As a non-archivist I'm liking the naming style and the consistency of
ArchivalItem
and ArchivalCollection

~Richard.

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

On 7 August 2015 at 16:21, Sarah Romkey <sromkey@artefactual.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 15:27:50 UTC

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