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

Re: Archive Collection and Archived Item

From: Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:44:28 +0200
To: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8425de7c-f322-d08a-e645-a97a76ba44b9@ubc.ca>
Jane,

I absolutely agree, that's exactly the first step we are doing in our 
analysis--understand the scope and goals of Schema.org, being aware that 
discoverability is probably the most evident one. However, starting from 
that point, ie respecting the nature of Schema.org, many choices can be 
made. When I wrote "try and create an Extension that would fit better 
our (archival) perspective" I meant that we should try and make the 
choices that - while respecting the nature of Schema.org and 
accomplishing its goals - are better suited to what I may call an 
archival perspective. Each domain has developed concepts and methods 
that may help shaping the Schema--otherwise the concept of Extension 
itslef would be useless. So, let's take advantage of this body of 
knowledge. I'm no custodian of the Sacred Archival Knowledge, but I'd 
like - if possible and makes sense - to imbue the Archival Extension 
with some archival knowledge--it seems perfectly reasonable to me, as 
long as this doesn't conflict with the overall design of Schema.org.

The practical dimension, the inclusion in the global information 
community, the reuse of vocabularies... I guess we all share these 
principles. However, these are just principles, so they can be 
interpreted and implemented in different ways.

Giovanni



Il 11/04/2017 17:21, Jane Stevenson ha scritto:
> [...]
> Giovanni, you say:
> 
>> I don't see why we can't try and create an Extension that would fit better our (archival) perspective
> 
> But I’m not convinced we want to do that. I think this is about discoverability across the Web, where people don’t have an archival perspective. We should keep that perspective in terms of our own descriptive standards, but I suggest we should think about modifying it when we want to be part of the global information community.  The key thing here, I think, is what are ‘our needs’? We need to be very clear what schema.org is for, and what its benefits are. I remain convinced that we get the benefits most by sharing common vocabularies.
> 
> cheers
> Jane
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 15:42:49 UTC

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