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 16:43:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz6YAPhq7Oq5w++PhL2vPhONa1OZoOdtNamw7ejixsHHzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>
Cc: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Giovanni,

Thank you for you comments and capturing the sequence of previous events.

Viewing the participants
<https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/participants> of the community,
there are many from “the archival community”.  I wouldn’t consider the
proposal as frozen but one that for some reason the community did not
engage around in either a positive or negative manner.

For a potential way forward for understanding how to describe archives and
their contents using the Schema.org vocabulary for sharing with search
engines, it is the only source I am aware of.  Unsurprisingly it is
therefore where this new activity started.

I welcome the discussion around the proposal, in the hope that we will
eventually get enough of a consensus amongst those motivated to participate
to enable a well formed proposal to be made to the wider Schema.org
community.

I would suggest that your colleagues in the archival community be
encouraged to join the community and participate in the discussion to
arrive at a potentially even better result.  As to your point about a
fundamental stakeholder, that would be entirely welcome.  Any proposal from
any community carries far more weight when such a committed implementer is
behind it.

To those new to this discussion I would emphasise two points

   1. The objective is to arrive at proposal(s) to enhance and or extend
   the Schema.org vocabulary to enable it to be used for the description of
   archives and their contents to improve their discovery on the web.  It is
   not to create a new, or replace established, ontologies used for the
   management of those resources.

   2. The proposal we are discussing is an initial example not a completed
   proposal.  To quote the first lines of the wiki page:
   “*This page contains a description of an initial model for a proposed
   Archive extension for the schema.org <http://schema.org> vocabulary. Almost
   by definition significant parts of this will be wrong. However, as its
   purpose is to stimulate and assist discussion as a full proposal evolves,
   that is not necessarily a bad thing*.”

Finally can I suggest that this might be a great topic for the LODLAM 2017
Summit <https://summit2017.lodlam.net> in Venice.

~Richard.

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

On 14 February 2017 at 16:20, Giovanni Michetti <giovanni.michetti@ubc.ca>
wrote:

> 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/stat
>>> us/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/stat
>>> us/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 16:44:24 UTC

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