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

Re: Archive Collection and Archived Item

From: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:18:59 +0000
To: Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>
CC: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A69161B4-D96C-41C1-87D0-4A4D42A9D576@jisc.ac.uk>
Yes, I think we’re in agreement - discussing and clarifying is good :-)

I take your point, and I think that we’ll end up with the input of our ‘archival perspective’ benefitting the schema.org community, along with a good dose of pragmatism and compromise.  That’s why I raise things like ‘archival creator’ and what ‘accessAndUse’ really means. 

Coming back to the archival properties…..I think that the class that may or may not be called ‘ArchivedItem’ gives us the opportunity to think about properties we need. And I think for me that’s the key thing. Personally, I accept Richard’s argument that the name isn’t so important in principle, but I think in practice its best to give it a name and definition that is less open to mis-interpretation. 


> On 11 Apr 2017, at 16:44, Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca> wrote:
> 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

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 16:19:35 UTC

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