Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

Hi Richard,
Thanks for getting things rolling! I'm in favor of this proposal too, and I
think the second point regarding the definition of schema:LocalBusiness
being too commercial is really important.

Hillel Arnold
Lead Digital Archivist
Rockefeller Archive Center

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
>>
>>
>>
>