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

Re: Discussion about previous proposal

From: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:14:11 +0000
To: "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BD1884F6-00ED-45B3-B487-5EB94E8BCB79@jisc.ac.uk>


OK, I’m not clear on this….

ArchivedItem has its own properties, which include accessAndUse, itemCondition, itemDescription, itemProvenance.  I can see these are ‘archive specific’.  

1. Should I not worry about the class being intangible? An intangible thing doesn’t have a Location, Condition or Provenance. I do get the basic premise that it doesn’t matter too much in schema.org what things are called (e.g. the localBusiness class being used for an archive). So maybe I’m getting too hung up on describing something physical under the class of intangible? I thought first of all you were saying that this was only to describe it as ‘partOf’ something, but clearly it is also to describe its physical characteristics. 

2. ArchivedItem also inherits ‘thing’ properties - name, description, url. 
So what about DateCreated, inLanguage, genre, creator, about, etc?  These are the properties I would want to use at any level when describing archives - from the collection to the series to the item. 

If we take DateCreated, which is a key descriptor, the problem we have is that it is used for a creative work. But If we are going to use schema.org to help with discovery of archives through search engines, I think date created is a useful property to have. 

3. ArchiveCollection can in theory be a single item anyway, and then you may want to use e.g. itemCondition, itemDescription. 

For the Archives Hub we tend to think in terms of an archival unit - and that can be at any level. A collection could be one item, or a collection may only be described at series level. We simply want to apply schema.org to every unit of description, and I had thought that we would be able to do this without thinking in terms of whether the unit is a collection or item. I’m also not sure where that leaves a series, sub series, file….

- Any type of *thing* could be in an archive.so archive specific attributes cold not be expected to be added to a single Type.

But you are adding archive attributes to the single type of ArchivedItem….? 

- 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.

But here you seem to be saying that we can add archive specific properties to ArchivedItem - so they can’t be added to a single type but they can be added to ArchivedItem, which is a type?   (clearly I’m not getting something here). 

It seems like you’re saying that archived item is a type, rather than a ‘thing', as Owen was saying. But the properties seem very much to be describing a thing. 

- *CreativeWork*, *Product*, etc. would be too specific

But this comes back to the requirement to use the CreativeWork properties. 


cheers,
Jane

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 Wednesday, 15 February 2017 16:37:49 UTC

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