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

Re: Discussion about previous proposal

From: Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:20:41 +0100
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f91bcd68-b131-1e76-800b-0d263b4fecee@ubc.ca>
Hi Richard,

this exploratory model was presented about 18 months ago. There has been 
some discussion on some very specific points in July and August 2015, 
and then there has been no further discussion or action. So my 
understanding - based also on the comments posted in 2015 - was that the 
proposal had been let die, or at least frozen.

The proposal has now been revived, as far as I see. If that's the case, 
please consider that the archival community may have something to say 
about it--from what I remember, there are quite a number of issues with 
this extension.

In short, I would suggest 1) to consider this as a frozen model that 
needs some further deep discussion before implementation, and 2) to 
search for greater involvment of the archival community, if you want 
this initiative to be shared and agreed by one fundamental stakeholder.

If you confirm that you want this initiative to go ahead, I'll try and 
involve a number of colleagues in the archival community, in order to 
provide a detailed analysis of the model, which will require some time 
though--I may dare to say end of March.

Giovanni



Il 14/02/2017 16:33, Richard Wallis ha scritto:
> 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
> <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think the other point is that at the moment the definition
>     on http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
>     <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
>     <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 <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
>     Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
>>     On 14 Feb 2017, at 14:53, Richard Wallis
>>     <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com
>>     <mailto: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 <http://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?
>>           o /CreativeWork/, /Product/, etc. would be too specific
>>           o /Thing/ would be a possibility.  However in Schema.org
>>             <http://Schema.org> only the highest level types become a
>>             subtype of /Thing/.
>>           o 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 16:20:40 UTC

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