- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:27:12 +0100
- To: Giovanni Michetti <michetti@mail.ubc.ca>
- Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Sarah Romkey <sromkey@artefactual.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD47Kz4htz5UJLasEmaiJUAkg3UN7Q+Xa-DaXm2ScLYoOMGDdg@mail.gmail.com>
Seems that we are moving towards of agreement albeit at differing levels of detail. :-) I suggest we let the harvesting of thoughts and opinions continue for a while and then see if we have enough to shape up some examples to kick the tyres on. ~Richard On 7 August 2015 at 18:29, Giovanni Michetti <michetti@mail.ubc.ca> wrote: > Jeff, > > of course I agree, Events and Actions may help describing what happens to > archival objects. However, I think you highlighted a relevant point here. > According to the initial request from Richard, we have been asked to > identify the relevant properties needed to describe archival objects. I > started identifying some "areas", i.e, aspects that we consider relevant, > because I took Richard's request as a sort of identification of users' > needs rather than properties. In fact, you "translated" the need for > information on the history of objects in a set of classes and properties. > In other words, once a need is identified and accepted, we'll find a way to > represent it--and there may be indeed different solutions. > > I think at this point is important to identify our needs, i.e. what we > need to know about the objects. Once we agree on these needs, we may focus > on the best way to represent them--either a new property, or a new class? > either a specialization of a property or a new property? and so on. > > Anyway, the short reply is, I agree with you. > > Giovanni > > > > > > On 2015-08-07 6:04 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > >> 1) yes, "owns" does half of the job, rather, part of it. Let me add >>> something >>> more, just to share knowledge and clarify the archival perspective. >>> Archives are >>> supposed to be repositories of authentic records. In order to guarantee >>> and >>> maintain authenticity we need to know what happens to objects from >>> creation >>> time till they come into our hands--any information gap may result in an >>> "authenticity gap", since we may not be able to guarantee that records >>> have >>> not been tampered with, corrupted, misplaced etc. "What happens to >>> objects" >>> means that we need to know of any change of either the real obejcts >>> (i.e., >>> change of format, amendments, compression...) or their context, that is, >>> their >>> surroundings, including owners, custodians or any other agent who had a >>> role >>> in maintaining the environment in which records are preserved. >>> >> >> It seems like http://schema.org/Event and/or http://schema.org/Action >> could help track the history of an item. The connection back to the >> ArchivalItem items could presumably be made using >> http://schema.org/object. >> >> 2) I'm not sure "hold" can be defined as a temporary ownership. For what I >>> know the difference is legal. Objects may be held for decades by agent >>> X, yet >>> the property right may be held by agent Y. "To Hold" is about keeping >>> stuff, "To >>> Own" is about having a title of property on it. >>> >> >> This seems somewhat analogous to https://schema.org/TradeAction cases >> where temporal/transient control can be expressed and attached to a thing, >> again via http://schema.org/object. >> >> Jeff >> >> 3) Hence, the idea of enhancing OwnershipInfo doesn't seem to work to me, >>> because it is anyway a value of property "own", which is a different >>> thing from >>> "hold/keep/whatever". >>> >>> In short, I would go for a different property. I understand your >>> concerns, so >>> maybe "Keep" may work. Otherwise, if we agree anyway that a class is >>> needed, >>> let's call it "Foo1" for the moment---we'll find the label later. >>> >>> >>> re CreativeWorks: >>> I agree with you, except that while it is true that "archivists identify >>> that they >>> have a need to describe a category [...] named Documents", it is not >>> corrrect to >>> state that archivists identify such a category as a CreativeWork--we are >>> just >>> discussing about it and see what the best solution is. >>> >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2015-08-07 3:20 PM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>> >>>> More good points and analysis - comments below... >>>> >>>> ~Richard >>>> >>>> 1) with regard to the two potential approaches there is a major >>>> issue: "owns" (ie "Products owned by the organization or person" >>>> [sic]) is not an adequate property for describing custody. When we >>>> talk about custodial history we are not necessarily talking about >>>> owning. Archives may be deposited, or borrowed (e.g., for an >>>> exhibition), so at a given time they may be possessed by an >>>> archival >>>> institution, while being owned (i.e. possessed by right) by some >>>> other subject. The custodial history is the story of the custody, >>>> not the story of the owners. We need to trace it, because it >>>> provides fundamental information to assess authenticity. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds like "owns" [with suitable expansion to include Things that are >>>> not only Products] only does half the job, and we need a parallel >>>> mechanism to describing temporary ownership or 'holding'. One >>>> possibility could be to enhance OwnershipInfo >>>> <http://schema.org/OwnershipInfo> to be capable of describing >>>> ownership of a temporary nature. Alternatively we could go for another >>>> property to alongside owns. The name of 'holds' immediately comes to >>>> mind but I fear it would not be acceptable to the the wider Schema.org >>>> group due to alternative meanings in areas such as sport and medicine. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) with regard to archives as CreativeWorks, I agree with you: it >>>> cannot be argued that "a government document is not a type of >>>> CreativeWork", not because it is indeed, but because as a matter of >>>> fact CreativeWorks are not defined. It is strange though that we >>>> can >>>> find email messages, datasets, books, and any sort of things in the >>>> CreativeWorks bucket, while documents and records have not been >>>> mentioned at all. I think first of all we should define a class for >>>> Document, since the bulk of an archives is made by documents after >>>> all. >>>> >>>> >>>> With the evolving nature of Schema.org it is not that surprising that >>>> apparently obvious things are not yet represented in the vocabulary. >>>> Types get into the vocabulary when a need is identified. This is >>>> exactly the process that we are engaged in here -- archivists identify >>>> that they have a need to describe a category of CreativeWorks named >>>> Documents and propose the creation of such a Type in an archives >>>> extension or even potentially in the core vocabulary. >>>> >>>> I have updated the Wiki Page >>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Main_Page> to reflect >>>> this suggestion. >>>> >>>> >>>> Giovanni >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2015-08-07 1:04 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>>> >>>> Some good points Sarah - comments below... >>>> >>>> Two properties stick out to me that are not covered as far >>>> as I can >>>> tell in the generic Collection schema: >>>> >>>> 1. Holding archives/institution: because archives are >>>> unique, it's >>>> important to record the institution that holds the >>>> collection. >>>> >>>> >>>> Related to this point: >>>> >>>> 2. Custodial history, or the archival history of the >>>> collection >>>> before and during its custody in an institution. This is >>>> important >>>> to record for making presumptions of authenticity and >>>> understanding >>>> the limits to what the collection contains (e.g., half of >>>> it was >>>> lost in a fire, etc) >>>> >>>> >>>> There are a couple of potential approaches to these points. >>>> Firstly >>>> coming at it from the holding organization's point of view: >>>> >>>> * Organization <http://schema.org/Organization> has an owns >>>> <http://schema.org/owns> property that has OwnershipInfo >>>> <http://schema.org/OwnershipInfo> as one of the options >>>> in its >>>> range. OwnershipInfo <http://schema.org/OwnershipInfo> >>>> has some >>>> useful properties for capturing some of the things you >>>> describe >>>> associated with ArchivesCollections it may hold. >>>> * Some of the current descriptions of these properties are >>>> very >>>> Product focused, but recommending that an Organization can >>>> additionally own CreativeWorks (such as an >>>> ArchivesCollection) could >>>> well work. >>>> >>>> Secondly from the point of view of describing the same current >>>> and >>>> historical information for a collection: >>>> >>>> * The OwnershipInfo Type could be enhanced to include the >>>> owner >>>> Organization >>>> * The proposed ArchivesCollection could have an ownedBy >>>> property which >>>> would have Organization, Person, and OwnershipInfo in its >>>> range >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 18:27:41 UTC