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

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:40:28 +1000
Message-ID: <CABYnw3LLf6MWSwFDmSPbS-vVkrVYMj_i38iVM+QtwNgoWb=bFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark A. Matienzo" <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>

My 2c (apologies upfront, I wasn't in the discussion at LODLAM in case this
got worked over) and I'm looking at Schema.org for the first time
properly.  Feel free to point me to some background reading and to resist

But.. I am having a reaction to the suggestion that an archive or library
operates as a subclass of LocalBusiness.

What's the purpose here?  To share information about the GLAM group entity
or its collection/archival material or both?  I'm wagering both and that
they need to be treated separately.

Archives (as group entity) sit within diverse organisation types.
Archives (as material that emerges from activities).

Same goes for libraries and library collections.

Could not a CollectingOrganisation entity be a type of Organisation?

Rather than CreativeWork, perhaps HeritageObject or something equally
stretchy to encompass diverse GLAM collection materials.

Ingrid (Canberra)

*GLAM being galleries, libraries, archives, museums

On 28 July 2015 at 09:24, Mark A. Matienzo <mark.matienzo@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 29 July 2015 22:23:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:28:58 UTC