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

Re: Discussion about previous proposal

From: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:28:03 +0000
Message-Id: <DA2855CB-FA9B-4292-86DC-449AEA8091E7@ostephens.com>
Cc: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
I think the other point is that at the moment the definition on http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem says “An item in an archive collection.” which is misleading (IMO at least). Just having a look around it looks like this text also appears on

http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/CurationEvent

Both these need updating to accurately reflect the proposal.

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

> On 14 Feb 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 <http://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 <http://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.
> 
> 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 <http://ado-archive.appspot.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com <http://dataliberate.com/>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
> Twitter: @rjw
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 15:28:39 UTC

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