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 16:11:27 +0000
Message-Id: <42FCBF60-4ABC-4783-9CAF-82C0E2B9083F@ostephens.com>
Cc: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
To: Adrian Stevenson <Adrian.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
The question of SERP is probably for a different list, but for what it is worth my view would be for the purposes of SERP, using well established sdo vocabulary in a standard way would be the best way forward. Discussion here and an eventual proposal should offer improved options which may eventually prove useful, but I wouldn’t stop you doing something now - it can always be revised/improved later.

I’d be interested in discussing the practical steps archives can take with the existing SDO terms, but not sure where the right venue for this discussion is (Dan/Richard can you advise?)

Owen


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

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 16:05, Adrian Stevenson <Adrian.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi All
> 
> Thanks everyone for contributing and picking this up from twitter. I am somewhat out of my comfort zone with this sort of discussion, but Jane S might be able to help me when she picks this up if she has time, although I’m attempting to lead on this as the rest of our team have more than enough to do.  As is mentioned briefly below, we recently went live with a new version of the Hub - https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/ . This does now give us, amongst other things, more flexibility to implement things like schema.org, and we are keen to do this if we can. 
> 
> Maybe this is an obvious thing to say, but at least from my point of view, the focus is improving discoverability in search engines by such things as localisation and improved presentation of results in SERPs which as I understand it, schema.org helps with, along with perhaps boosting the overall SERP ranking for the Hub. I imagine we all want to avoid the development of an alternative archives specification (do we?), but at the same time I understand it can’t be too much of a shoehorning job. I presume the more we move away from using established terms such as http://schema.org/LocalBusiness , the more we risk losing the payoff of using schema.org in the first place, so please correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption. I also don’t really have any sense of how close we are to having something that can be formalised and used at the moment either. 
> 
> Just to pick up on a couple of things from Richard:
> 
>> 	• 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.
> 
> Ok, I think I get that. Is the issue of confusion between the wiki and http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem addressed then, as I’m still not sure.
> 
>> • 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.  Already has a collection of subtypes with similar issues. 
> 
> As much as I want to get going on with things, I suppose this feels like quite a shoehorn, but I’m not sure if I’m too worried about. 
> 
> Adrian
> _____________________________
> Adrian Stevenson
> Senior Technical Coordinator
> Jisc Manchester
> 6th Floor, Churchgate House
> 56 Oxford Street
> Manchester
> M1 6EU
> 
> Email: adrian.stevenson@jisc.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 413 7561 
> http://www.twitter.com/adrianstevenson
> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/adrianstevenson/
> 
>> On 14 Feb 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
>>> 	adrianstevenson
>>> @rjw Perhaps something for #lodlam17 ?but was hoping to move sooner if poss @edsu @danbri @archiveshub
>>> 09/02/2017, 15:10
>>> 
>>> 	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
>>> 
>>> 	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
>>> 	ostephens
>>> @janestevenson ArchivedItem currently mixes two ideas by the look of it @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
>>> 14/02/2017, 14:02
>>> 	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
>>> 
>>> 	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
>>> 	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
>>> 
>>> 	ostephens
>>> @janestevenson which definitely seems in contradiction to wiki defn & being intangible @adrianstevenson @edsu @rjw
>>> 14/02/2017, 14:06
>>> 	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
>>> 
>>> 	edsu
>>> @ostephens @janestevenson @adrianstevenson @rjw seems to me that membership in an archival collection should be enough.
>>> 14/02/2017, 14:19
>>> 
>>> 	ostephens
>>> @edsu +1 @adrianstevenson @janestevenson @rjw
>>> 14/02/2017, 14:20
>>> 	rjw
>>> @ostephens @janestevenson @adrianstevenson @edsu In proposal adding ArchivedItem as additionalType provides access to archive relevant props
>>> 14/02/2017, 14:22
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To continue……..
>>> 
>>> The logic behind the proposal for 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.  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
>> 
> 
> 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, 14 February 2017 16:12:03 UTC

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