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

Re: Archive as a collection of things

From: Giovanni Michetti <michetti@mail.ubc.ca>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:02:01 +0200
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com>
CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55C4D679.4010209@mail.ubc.ca>
I agree, ArchivalItem as a subclass of Thing.

Giovanni



On 2015-08-07 4:30 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> Agree.
>
> On 7 August 2015 at 15:28, Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>         <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
>         <mailto: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
>             <mailto:“a%20non-CreativeWork%20item%20held%20as%20part%20of%20a%20collection.”@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
>             <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 16:02:59 UTC

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