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

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Sarah Romkey <sromkey@artefactual.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:38:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAr2QttGwHouPdPTGFRom2kA-fjxjUf41bPxggcz1Jm70chxBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Cc: "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>
Hello all,

I am in favour of this proposal and of using the ICA definition of an
archive for the purpose of archive(s) as an institution.

Already looking forward to a long discussion r.e. archives the
documents/records/creative works!

Cheers,

Sarah

Sarah Romkey, MAS,MLIS
Systems Archivist
Artefactual Systems <http://artefactual.com>
604-527-2056
@archivematica <http://www.twitter.com/archivematica> / @accesstomemory
<http://www.twitter.com/accesstomemory>



On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:

> There is a thread in the Schema.org github
> <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628>, where this was first
> raised.
>
> I have reflected the proposals from that into the Architypes Wiki
> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Main_Page#Proposals>, which
> are:
>
>    - As per thread in schema.org github issues
>    <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628>:
>       - Archive to be new subtype of LocalBusiness - as per Library
>       <http://schema.org/Library>
>       - Description: "Institution with archival holdings. An organization
>       which keeps and preserves archival material and makes it accessible to the
>       public."
>       - Propose change to LocalBusiness description to include:
>       "businesses may also be not-for-profit or state-owned"
>
>
> ~Richard
>
>
> On 28 July 2015 at 12:25, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ingrid,
>>
>> Thoughts inline below
>>
>> ~Richard
>> On 28 July 2015 at 01:40, Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kaching!
>>>
>>> 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
>>> opining.
>>>
>>
>> Best place to start is Schema.org  and the FAQ
>> <http://schema.org/docs/faq.html>.  You will see from these that
>> Schema.org is a general purpose vocabulary (currently of 600+ Types and
>> 900+ properties) for describing things on the web - I would add the
>> implicit '*so they can be discovered*'.  These aims - describing things
>> and for discovery - result in a certain uncomfortable reaction for those
>> new to it.  Such as books having a name not a title, Volcano
>> <http://schema.org/Volcano> having the ability to define a faxNumber,
>> and your concerns about LocalBusiness.
>>
>>
>>> But.. I am having a reaction to the suggestion that an archive or
>>> library operates as a subclass of LocalBusiness.
>>>
>>
>> Do not read too much into type name of LocalBusiness.  It is just a
>> useful way to combine the properties from Place and Organization plus
>> openingHours (see this pre-release view of Library
>> <http://webschemas.org/Library> which shows the type inheritance better)
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> The purpose of the potential archive.schema.org extension is to share
>> information about:
>>
>>    - An archive organization with a physical/virtual presence (address,
>>    parentOrganization, department(s), openingHours etc.)
>>       - Organizations such as The National Archives
>>       <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/>
>>       - Organizations of all types - commercial, not for profit,
>>       government, etc.
>>       - Organizations could add this to their other descriptive types
>>       e.g. An organization could be a Library AND an Archive
>>    - An archive - an archived collection of things
>>       - Ownership/responsibility not necessarily associated with an
>>       organization that declares itself an Archive.
>>    - Things within an archive
>>       - Including but not restricted to creative work
>>
>> This discussion thread is focussed on the first of these.
>>
>>>
>>> Could not a CollectingOrganisation entity be a type of Organisation?
>>>
>>
>> It could be, but I'm not sure what extra value/properties would be gained
>> by this move - we would still need to add in most of what comes from
>> LocalBusiness.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Rather than CreativeWork, perhaps HeritageObject or something equally
>>> stretchy to encompass diverse GLAM collection materials.
>>>
>>
>> This will be the subject of another, I expect long, thread about what is
>> unique about things in an archive that we want to share and help make them
>> discoverable.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 22:23:39 UTC

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