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

Re: Discussion about previous proposal

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:33:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz4XDu5+rvU44FXL80dKeZQKC1V7YzAcyi-pccYX3CtKCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Cc: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Yes - this proposal was published well over a year ago and Schema has moved
on since then.

We will need to review it in context of the upcoming 3.2 release.

Thanks @danbri for the comment about MTEs and additionalType.

In jsonld you would see:

{
   “@context”: “http://schema.org”',
   “@type”: [“Map”, “ArchivedItem”],
   “name”: “An Old Map of Interest”,


Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 14 February 2017 at 15:28, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:

> 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… 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.
>
>    - 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 15:33:52 UTC

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