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

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:35:38 +0000
To: Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com>
CC: "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <58A0283E-E098-48F4-BA27-E10BEBEEBF75@oclc.org>
It's unfortunate that "Cultural Heritage Institution" doesn't flow off the tongue the way "NGO" does. I blame the English language. ;-)

On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Ethan Gruber <ewg4xuva@gmail.com<mailto:ewg4xuva@gmail.com>> wrote:

What if we proposed a new subclass of Organization for Cultural Heritage Institutions? Then we could slot libraries, archives, museums, and similar organizations under that class. There is an NGO class (http://schema.org/NGO), which might work under some circumstances, but not work in others. NARA is both an archive and a governmental organization.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com<mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>> wrote:
Hi Karen,

Singular / plural term names have been a discussion since the early days of Schema.org<http://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 Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
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 F. Gracy
Associate Professor
School of Library and Information Science
Kent State University

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 Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 01:36:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:57:12 UTC