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

RE: Archive as a collection of things

From: Valentine Charles <valentine.charles@europeana.eu>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:45:55 +0000
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com>
CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E5C9E2790E641E4EA8FF8583923BBC0D08162F98@MBX-SRV-P200.wpakb.kb.nl>
Hi everybody,

I'm just reading through this thread and have trouble to understand the rationale behind the schema:ArchivalItem.
Also related to the distinction between Creative Work non creative work what would you qualify as a non creative work?
To me documents, records are creative work at the same level than a book, a sheet of paper you would find in an archive.

Could someone summarise where we are ?



Valentine Charles
Data R&D Coordinator

T: +31 (0)70 314 0391
E: valentine.charles@europeana.eu
Skype: charles.valentine

Become a member of Europeana Network Association and be part of Europe's online cultural movement:  <http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation> http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation

If you're interested in how Europeana makes Europe's culture available for all, across borders and generations and for creative re-use - follow us at #AllezCulture
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.

From: Richard Wallis [richard.wallis@dataliberate.com]
Sent: 07 August 2015 16:30
To: Ethan Gruber
Cc: public-architypes
Subject: Re: Archive as a collection of things


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? :)

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:

   a schema:Book, schema:ArchivalItem
   schema:isPartOf <MyCollection>;

   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 Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
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:

                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.


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 Monday, 10 August 2015 06:50:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:57:12 UTC