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 18:18:11 +0100
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ac848c17-3cdf-26e7-c3b7-fa5c08f54371@ubc.ca>
Richard,

thank you for emphasizing the two points--they clarify the scope of this 
initiative.

Also, you are right, in this Interest Group there are people belonging 
to the archival community---I just wanted to highlight that the proposal 
hasn't been adequately analyzed and discussed, so my comment was on the 
one hand a sort of encouragement for me and my colleagues to engage in 
the discussion, on the other hand a suggestion for all of us not to 
consider this a stable draft model. So, I guess we are on the same page. 
I will immediatly ask for feedback to many colleagues around the 
world--as I wrote, I should be able to provide some analytical comments 
by the end March.

As it regards LODLAM, I totally agree. I'm not sure I can join (assumed 
seats are still available), but I would love to meet and discuss these 
topics with you and the other members of this list.

Giovanni



Il 14/02/2017 17:43, Richard Wallis ha scritto:
> 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 <mailto: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
>         <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
>         Twitter: @rjw
>
>         On 14 February 2017 at 15:28, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com
>         <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
>         <mailto: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>
>             <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>
>             <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>
>         <mailto: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>
>                 <mailto: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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831503916282044416>>
>
>                     *ostephens*
>                 @janestevenson on the wiki w3.org/community/arch
>             <http://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
>             <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
>             <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831504331803332609>>
>
>                     *ostephens*
>                 @janestevenson but on
>             archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem
>             <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchivedItem>
>                 <http://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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <https://twitter.com/edsu/status/831508234057953281>>
>
>
>                     *ostephens*
>                 @edsu +1 @adrianstevenson @janestevenson @rjw
>                 14/02/2017, 14:20
>                 <https://twitter.com/ostephens/status/831508365100605440
>             <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
>             <https://twitter.com/rjw/status/831508940907241472>>
>
>
>
>                 To continue……..
>
>                 The logic behind the proposal for ArchivedItem
>                 <http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/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
>             <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>
>             <http://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>
>                 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>             <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>>
>                 Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 17:17:19 UTC

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