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 13:22:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtk40srToqmCR4wVv+ipKXn_=LAfCMUOzNAhZBR0L62F_A@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>
Right, I'm OK with the schema.org approach of pluggable properties -
it is not very different from ontology properties with an rdfs:domain
of a given type - that doesn't mean that all instances of that type
needs to use the property.


Some intermediate type (or renamed type) like OrganizationPlace would
be much more neutral and applicable than LocalBusiness. Volcanoes can
keep their fax numbers. :-)




On 30 July 2015 at 12:43, Richard Wallis
<richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
> Both Ethan and Stian raise good points here.
>
> Many archives, along with the rest of the GLAM community of organizations,
> are cultural heritage organizations operated by government, local &
> national, or not for profit NGOs - but not all fall within those boundaries.
> Some are commercial, or part of commercial, organizations.  Many do not open
> to the public, but many do.
>
> An archive does not have to be physical, yet the organization that hosts it,
> which is what we are discussing here, most likely does have a physical
> presence:
>
> From Archive.org: please contact the Archive at info@archive.org or Internet
> Archive, 300 Funston Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118, phone 415-561-6767.
>
> Zenodo: Address European Organization for Nuclear Research, CH-1211 CERN,
> Genève 23, Switzerland.
>
>
> We have a matrix of organization types (commercial, government, not for
> profit, cultural heritage, etc) and physical presence, or not, and
> organizations as disparate as a local branch library/archive,
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/, http://zenodo.org, to represent.
>
> Whatever compromise we come up with, it will feel not quite right to someone
> in our community.
>
> How we proceed towards a consensus is greatly influenced by Schema.org, the
> vocabulary we are [hopefully] proposing to extend, its style and purpose.
>
> Schema is a general purpose vocabulary for describing things on the web - to
> make those descriptions more readily understandable and discoverable in the
> wider world, leading to them being more discoverable.  This has led to 600+
> types and 900+ properties being available where appropriate to describe your
> resources.  This has resulted in defined Types inheriting properties from
> super types that seem a little anomalous. An oft quoted example being the
> Volcano Type inheriting faxNumber from Place.  When you look at the
> documentation, that property does not make much sense when narrowly defining
> a particular volcano. However it is only there as a potential term - if your
> volcano does not have a fax, you don't need to use it.
>
> If we do create Archive as a subtype of LocalBusiness, users of the
> vocabulary to describe their archive organization will be presented with a
> collection of properties to use if and where appropriate.  If their
> organization has opening hours, that will define them. If they do not open
> to the public they will not. The same for address, etc.
>
> The semantic inferences of Type names and their descriptions is obviously
> important as we build our proposals and I am fully in favour of proposing
> enhancements to the description of the LocalBusiness Type to make it less
> commercially focused - for the benefit of the whole vocabulary not just for
> archives.
>
> We also have to consider the established use of the vocabulary
> (LocalBusiness for example is already in use on between 500,000 - 1,000,000
> domains) and the benefits for description and discovery in introducing new
> types, especially super types, such as CollectingOrganisation, into the
> vocabulary.
>
> Pragmatically, I believe we have an excellent chance of getting a proposal
> to enhance the description of LocalBusiness accepted. Equally I believe we
> will have great difficulty in justifying a proposal for a new super-type
> that will mostly duplicate LocalBusiness.
>
> I am hoping where this group can add the most benefit and value is in
> describing the actual archives, these organizations hold and manage, and
> what they contain.
>
> ~Richard
>
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
> On 30 July 2015 at 10:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> -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
>
>



-- 
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 12:23:34 UTC

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