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 16:15:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz4am6jvAZ-4w0hgWajHysn4Ey-2SCJru5bH14FC4LjB1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Cc: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Owen, taking your comments in revers order…

This is as useful entry point into the discussion as any.   Anything that
leads to a consensus around a proposal is a way forward.  As soon as we
[archive interested folks] have that we can then propose it to Schema lists
for wider discussions.

Across Schema.org it is more a search for reuse than uniqueness.  The
approach being to identify the types and properties needed to share a
description of a Thing, thus identifying what is missing and needs
proposing.

hasPart, isPartOf, itemCondition, are already available in the vocabulary
so what is missing is an adjustment to their range.


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

On 14 February 2017 at 16:07, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:

> So from what I can see the additional new (to sdo) properties we are
> talking about for ArchivedItem are:
>
> accessAndUse (Details of conditions of access and use of the item(s).)
> itemDescription (A document describing the item and/or its curation,
> history, etc.)
> itemLocation (The [current] location of the item)
> itemProvenance (Ownership history.)
> itemTransfer (Transfer of item between places.)
>
> We also have three properties that already
>
> hasPart (currently available to CreativeWork)
> isPartOf (currently available to CreativeWork)
> itemCondition (currently available to Product)
>
> I’m not yet convinced any of this is unique to an item in an archive. To
> take the most obvious example to me - these could all apply to a rare book
> in a library as much to an item in an archive.
> I can see a problem with itemCondition only currently being available to
> Product, but I think that applies more generally.
>
> Is this a useful point to pick up some of the discussion? I’m not quite
> sure the best place to start - it just happens that this was the question
> that led me here :)
>
> Owen
>
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 14 Feb 2017, at 15:43, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 14 February 2017 at 15:02, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> > On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Richard Wallis <
>> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >       • 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.
>>
>> Do you have a sense of what these item-level, archive specific properties
>> might be?
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>
> >From the Initial Mode
> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Initial_model>l in the Wiki
>  and represented on http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem.
>
> *accessAndUse*, *itemDescription*, *itemLocation*, *itemProvenance*,
> *itemTransfer*  and other Schema properties having *ArchivedItem* added
> to their domainIncudes *hasPart*, *isPartOf*, http://archive.sdo-archive.
> appspot.com/ArchivedItem.
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 16:16:21 UTC

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