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

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkt6tFSrYkx+vWqNmaGYU-RWJCEhk9DE1e8T7C-tOK=Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Cc: Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com>, "Mark A. Matienzo" <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>, "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>
-1 to  say an Archive is a kind of LocalBusiness.


In the description:

> A particular physical business or branch of an organization. Examples of LocalBusiness include a restaurant, a particular branch of a restaurant chain, a branch of a bank, a medical practice, a club, a bowling alley, etc.

If anything, the name "LocalBusiness" is what is wrong. This just
means an physical presence of an organization, like a shop, branch,
office, venue - but in particular that is somewhat open for consumers
(opening hours and payment options).

This explanation still makes sense for a regular Library (even if it's
not a Business), but not for say Pentagon, and I would argue not for
many kinds of Archives.


Does an Archive have to be physical? So https://archive.org/ and
http://zenodo.org/ doesn't count - none of the LocalBusiness
properties make sense there.

I thought we were particularly also supporting digital archives here.


Physical archives like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault has as a main
feature that it is *not* open nor accessible and I don't see why this
should come up as a LocalBusiness in Svalbard.



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.  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 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 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
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to the setting up of this group Dan Scott proposed 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 by subclassing schema: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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:06:10 UTC

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