W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-architypes@w3.org > April 2017

Re: ArchiveCollection Properties

From: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:51:30 +0000
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C516678-94BB-4C69-AB92-2F0411D79AB8@jisc.ac.uk>
Hi Richard,

I am definitely keen now to progress this through to having some level of schema.org on the Hub, so good to be progressing the discussions. It is just a case of finding the time, but now we have our new service up and running, I think its a good time! 

> 	• accessAndUse
> I agree the term name may be a little confusing - maybe a rename to something like accessConditions

Yes, I think that works, as it is ‘Conditions governing Access’  in ISAD(G). 

> I would not link that with other concepts such as copyright, however.  If the item was a CreativeWork of some type with copyright attached, a book for example, it would be defined as a schema:Book and a schema:ArchiveItem providing the relevant properties to describe the copyright.

Yes, but that’s partly the point - if it stays as ‘accessAndUse’ people may interpret it as ‘Conditions Governing Use’, which, as you say,  may be more appropriately described elsewhere. 

> • itemDescription
> If it is the case that it is not common to provide a link to a descriptive document. This property could be dropped.

A link to a whole description is common, but its rare to simply have a document with the descriptive content. I don’t think we’ve ever had an example of this. You might get something like an online PDF of the whole thing (title, date, extent, language, scope and content, etc)  but I’m not sure what is meant by "A document describing the item and/or its curation, history, etc.” 

> • itemLocation
> This as proposed was intended to describe the current location of the item itself, which may or may not be the archive.  The relationship with the archive/responsible institution would be obtained via the ArchiveCollection it is defined as being partOf.

Ah, OK. So ‘partOf’ would be used to say: ArchiveCollection X is partOf the holdings of Institution Y.  I thought ItemLocation must mean the repository because it is related to ‘Place’.  

In the UK its not normal practice to make the actual physical location known. I’m not sure about practices in other countries, but its seen as a security issue so its usually internal only. 

> • Identifier - since this proposal identifier has been added as a property to Thing in Schema.org so is available to all types.

Ah good - it isn’t in the ArchiveCollection page at the mo, so I didn’t realise that. 

> • Size/extent - these are properties that would be available from other type(s) associated with the description of an item, either schema:Product or a subtype of schema:CreativeWork.

OK, that’s good - I’ll take a look. 

> • Creator - would be available from the other type(s) associated with the description schema:CreativeWork or its subtypes. As you describe.  I’m not clear what the difference is between the creator of an item and the archival creator (of an item) is.  Or are you talking about the creator of the ArchiveCollection

The defintion of ‘creator’ in schema.org is: 

"The creator/author of this CreativeWork. This is the same as the Author property for CreativeWork.”

I’m not sure, but just wondering if it is appropriate to use this for the person/organisation that accumulated the archive - they did ‘create’ the archive collection, but they didn’t necessarily ‘author' any of it.  I think for the sake of convenience the answer is that we should use it, but I was just raising it as a question to consider. 

cheers
Jane
 



> On 11 Apr 2017, at 14:29, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jane,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts, it is good that this conversation is starting to move forward.
> 
> My thoughts on your thoughts:
> 	• accessAndUse
> I agree the term name may be a little confusing - maybe a rename to something like accessConditions.
> I would not link that with other concepts such as copyright, however.  If the item was a CreativeWork of some type with copyright attached, a book for example, it would be defined as a schema:Book and a schema:ArchiveItem providing the relevant properties to describe the copyright.
> 	• itemDescription
> If it is the case that it is not common to provide a link to a descriptive document. This property could be dropped.
> 	• itemLocation
> This as proposed was intended to describe the current location of the item itself, which may or may not be the archive.  The relationship with the archive/responsible institution would be obtained via the ArchiveCollection it is defined as being partOf.
> 	• The reason for separation was that items may well move between locations for short or long periods but not necessarily coinciding with a change of ownership.
> 		• You may well be right however that such information would not necessarily be shared outside of the archive and hence is not needed in Schema.org
> 	• Information not covered
> 		• Identifier - since this proposal identifier has been added as a property to Thing in Schema.org so is available to all types.
> 		• Size/extent - these are properties that would be available from other type(s) associated with the description of an item, either schema:Product or a subtype of schema:CreativeWork.
> 		• Creator - would be available from the other type(s) associated with the description schema:CreativeWork or its subtypes. As you describe.  I’m not clear what the difference is between the creator of an item and the archival creator (of an item) is.  Or are you talking about the creator of the ArchiveCollection
> ~Richard.
> 
> 
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com

> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis

> Twitter: @rjw
> 
> On 11 April 2017 at 12:42, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Some thoughts about properties...
> 
> * Properties that are currently proposed for ArchiveCollection *
> 
> accessAndUse
> 
> This brings together two concepts - information about access, which gives important information on whether the user can access the items - and information about use, which may refer to copyright, condition, or other things affecting how the materials can be used.  I think it may be confusing to bring these two together. I wondered what the thinking is here? Is it a case of trying to limit the number of properties? I would want to include Access Conditions in my schema.org markup, as I think this is something that is useful from the outset. information regarding use might be less important in this regard.
> 
> itemDescription
> 
> I don’t understand why this is defined as being a ‘document’. It is simply part of the description - there is generally no separate document. I’m not sure whether we should include the content of the description, as it can be very long, although it may be useful for discovery purposes.  Maybe this was defined as being a document because it would only be feasible to add a URL rather than the actual descriptive content?
> 
> itemLocation
> 
> This is intended to be the repository rather than actual physical location. It could be confusing to call it ‘location’ as the item may not be located at the repository’s address - it may be out-housed. But maybe that doesn’t matter as long as we know that this is defined as the responsible institution? In other words ‘Location’ actually means ‘Host’, or hosting institution.
> 
> itemProvenance
> itemTransfer
> 
> Not sure about separating these. Provenance tends to include the chain of ownership. Or does this mean the transfer to the repository, i.e. the immediate source of the acquisition? We don’t separate out transfers in a general sense, only a transfer into the repository, which might be the immediate source of acquisition.
> 
> However, personally, I wouldn’t include this information within my implementation of schema.org, as I think it more properly lies within the description as a whole; I don’t see the argument for having it within schema.org
> 
> * Information that is not covered within the ArchiveCollection property types *
> 
> Identifier - I can’t see where the identifier would be added. Is the argument that it isn’t relevant to discoverability? That’s probably largely true, but its seen as core to the basic description. It would be odd to have things like provenance and not the actual reference for the archival unit being described.
> 
> Size/extent - an indication of the volume of material is usually seen as core information. Again, maybe less important for discoverability, but more central than some of the other properties listed.
> 
> * Creator *
> 
> When we (the Locah project) were modelling in RDF we had the issue of the archival creator, and we decided that this was one instance where we had to create a new property, because archival creator is not author.
> It seems to come down to whether its better to use CreativeWork > Creator because it is a shared common concept, or whether its better to have a separate property, because the archival creator is a different concept.
> 
> cheers,
> Jane
> 
> Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
> 
> Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
> 

Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 13:52:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:28:59 UTC