Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

+1 - I am in support of mirroring the schema:Library class approach for Archive. Although there might not be any unique properties for it, I think it is important to individual classify it as to avoid the criticism/pushback that Richard alluded to.


+1 - For singular 'Archive' class name. As Richard mentioned I think we should follow the conventions already in place for Schema.org.


Thanks,

Jeff Mixter
Software Engineer
OCLC Research
614-761-5159
mixterj@oclc.org


________________________________
From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:45 PM
To: GRACY, KAREN F
Cc: public-architypes@w3.org; dan@coffeecode.net
Subject: Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

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<mailto: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<mailto:kgracy@kent.edu>


On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com<mailto: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<http://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<http://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<http://dataliberate.com/>
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw