- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:10:10 +0000
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Cc: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7e0JmNOB4E-ZBRB97TZ3V84Y8hisUEYN_Oa8ViM68OvQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 14 February 2017 at 14:53, Richard Wallis < richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Over the las few days there has been the following discussion on Twitter: > > *adrianstevenson* > @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 > <https://twitter.com/adrianstevenson/status/829708866829025280> > *adrianstevenson* > @rjw Perhaps something for #lodlam17 ?but was hoping to move sooner if > poss @edsu @danbri @archiveshub > 09/02/2017, 15:10 > <https://twitter.com/adrianstevenson/status/829709180676227072> > > *janestevenson* > @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 > <https://twitter.com/janestevenson/status/831418032727740417> > > *edsu* > @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> > *ostephens* > @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> > *ostephens* > @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> > > *ostephens* > @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> > *ostephens* > @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> > > *ostephens* > @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> > *ostephens* > @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> > > *edsu* > @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> > > *ostephens* > @edsu +1 @adrianstevenson @janestevenson @rjw > 14/02/2017, 14:20 > <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831508365100605440> > *rjw* > @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. > > If it is a type, just use normal typing mechanisms where available (e.g. in RDFa or JSON-LD). Note that the text defining additionalType looks like it was written before JSON-LD use became widespread. Dan > > - > - 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 > ado-archive.appspot.com > > > > > > Richard Wallis > Founder, Data Liberate > http://dataliberate.com > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis > Twitter: @rjw >
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 15:10:46 UTC