- From: Mark A. Matienzo <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:24:03 -0400
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Cc: "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Message-ID: <CAAtO2Nsua4qGyLEFbCV8JM=DWm1n5afOuqFzw_3jWPyD3Wn4ug@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Richard, all - As noted on my comments the proposal on Github [0], I'm in favor of this proposal. I also made a suggestion that we defer to the ICA-ISDIAH [1] definition (i.e., an "archive" in this sense as an institution with "archival holdings," rather than the stuff itself). [0] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628#issuecomment-125371578 [1] http://www.ica.org/10198/standards/isdiah -- Mark A. Matienzo <mark@matienzo.org> | http://anarchivi.st/ On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Richard Wallis < richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote: > Hi Karen, > > Singular / plural term names have been a discussion since the early days > of Schema.org that eventually settled in favor of singular. > > Yes, what is/isn't a creative work is definitely the subject for another > discussion, which we should start soon. > > ~Richard > > Richard Wallis > Founder, Data Liberate > http://dataliberate.com > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis > Twitter: @rjw > > On 27 July 2015 at 19:22, GRACY, KAREN F <kgracy@kent.edu> wrote: > >> I would be in support of adding Archive as a new subclass under >> schema:LocalBusiness. There is the question of whether we should use the >> singular or pluralized version of the word (archive and archives are often >> used interchangeably). The Glossary of Archival Records and Terminology >> (published by the Society of American Archivists) provides entries on each >> version (see http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archive and >> http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archives for Glossary >> definitions). >> >> In my estimation, the more serious concern might be with classifying >> archival documents as Creative Works (but I will save my comments for that >> conversation!). >> >> Karen >> >> *********************************************************** >> >> Karen F. Gracy >> Associate Professor >> School of Library and Information Science >> Kent State University >> kgracy@kent.edu >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Richard Wallis < >> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote: >> >> This is the first of a few conversations we need to start in building >> towards some consensus around proposals >> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Main_Page>. >> >> Prior to the setting up of this group Dan Scott proposed >> <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628> a new Schema.org >> type 'Archive': >> >> In preparing to attend the LODLAM Summit 2015 (Linked Open Data for >> Libraries, Archives, and Museums), it is glaringly evident that we are >> missing a class to represent archives. >> >> The simplest possible place to start would be to parallel schema:Library >> <http://schema.org/Library> by subclassing schema:LocalBusiness >> <http://schema.org/LocalBusiness> with a definition such as "An entity >> that collects documents and records related to the activities of people or >> organizations." >> This would enable us to describe archives as a specific class of >> LocalBusiness with schema.org, rather than having to use LocalBusiness >> directly. >> >> This raised comments regarding the too commercial nature of the >> LocalBusiness definition, which could be enhanced to include something >> along lines that "businesses may also be not-for-profit or state-owned." >> >> Are we happy to take on that proposal - do we have comments? >> >> ~Richard >> >> Richard Wallis >> Founder, Data Liberate >> http://dataliberate.com >> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis >> Twitter: @rjw >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 23:24:51 UTC