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 18:50:42 +0200
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Sarah Romkey <sromkey@artefactual.com>
CC: Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55C4E1E2.5090803@mail.ubc.ca>
Of course I like this matching, and I would go for it.

However - I'm sorry for being repetitive - I hope we'll have time later 
to discuss and tweak these labeling issues. Labels are just labels, on 
the one hand. On the other hand, we should keep in mind that a 
professional and scientific community is grounded upon its own jargon, 
because it is a fundamental element of identity. In this sense, a label 
is not just a label. So I would handle labels with care, because we can 
use Foo or Whatever, but if we use Archives or Archive we should be 
aware that there is a huge amount of conceptualization behind those 
terms. In many contries - including Italy - an Archives and a Collection 
are two different things, while in common language they may look very 
similar.

Labels are just labels. However, what if I ask you to use - for some 
reason of consistency or whatever - the term "delicateware" or 
"gentleware" in place of "software"--after all, they look very similar 
to me, and labels are just labels :-)

Joking apart, I'm sure there will be some time later to deal with these 
issues in a systematic way.

Giovanni



On 2015-08-07 5:27 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel: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
>     <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>> 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 16:51:29 UTC

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