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

Discussion about previous proposal

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz7BidLZrSZhdKMasL_OwDJAcqUFbVHN1_u0daTNeVZD=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Hi All,

Over the las few days there has been the following discussion on Twitter:

@rjw We’ve had heads down getting new @archiveshub system out. Now hoping
to implement schema, but unsure how best to do @edsu @danbri
09/02/2017, 15:09
@rjw Perhaps something for #lodlam17 ?but was hoping to move sooner if poss
@edsu @danbri @archiveshub
09/02/2017, 15:10

@adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw Looking into it now. Def want implement
something, prob quite simpe. Don't get why ArchivedItem is 'intangible'?
14/02/2017, 08:21

@janestevenson maybe start by trying to express what you need in your
specific context, instead of trying to model all archives?
14/02/2017, 13:51 <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831501086343229440>
@janestevenson ArchivedItem currently mixes two ideas by the look of it
@adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:02 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831503916282044416>
@janestevenson on the wiki w3.org/community/arch… it is defined as a ‘type’
you could apply to other Things @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:03 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504151146295297>

@janestevenson in that context intangible is right - because it is a
type/status of an item not an item itself @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:04 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504331803332609>
@janestevenson but on archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem it is
defined as ‘an item in an archive collection’ @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:06 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504797442441216>

@janestevenson which definitely seems in contradiction to wiki defn & being
intangible @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:06 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504883656380416>
@janestevenson so basically I agree its confusing and wrong in at least one
place at the moment! @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:09 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831505555931947008>

@ostephens @janestevenson @adrianstevenson @rjw seems to me that membership
in an archival collection should be enough.
14/02/2017, 14:19 <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831508234057953281>

@edsu +1 @adrianstevenson @janestevenson @rjw
14/02/2017, 14:20 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831508365100605440>
@ostephens @janestevenson @adrianstevenson @edsu In proposal adding
ArchivedItem as additionalType provides access to archive relevant props
14/02/2017, 14:22 <https://twitter.com/rjw/status/831508940907241472>

To continue……..

The logic behind the proposal for ArchivedItem
<http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem> is as follows:

   - Any type of *thing* could be in an archive.so archive specific
   attributes cold not be expected to be added to a single Type.

   - Using the Schema.org practice of Multi-Typed Entities (MTEs) those
   archive specific properties can be attached to a qualification type -
   Archived Item in this case.

   - To indicate a Thing (Book, ImageObject, Vehicle) is in an archive the
   ArchivedItem type is added as an additionalType.  This gives access, in
   addition to the normal properties for the type in question, to the archive
   specific properties, to use to markup the item.

   - The question then is which Type to make ArchivedItem a subtype of?
      - *CreativeWork*, *Product*, etc. would be too specific
      - *Thing* would be a possibility.  However in Schema.org only
      the highest level types become a subtype of *Thing*.
      - That leaves *Intangible
      <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/Intangible>*.  Already has a
      collection of subtypes with similar issues.

So the outcome is the proposal in the Wiki as represented on

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 14:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:57:13 UTC