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

Re: Discussion about previous proposal

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:41:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz5uFzaWS_ci+YrAo6y7+SHPCQQD_-qkei6pKsfzKr0=jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>
Hi Jane,

In your first email, your example Schema.org description of an
ArchiveCollection is a good start, utilising properties inherited from its
super types (CreativeWork and ArchivedItem).

Taking the points in your 2nd email:

1 & 2.. *Should I not worry about the class being intangible?* - No.   *maybe
I’m getting too hung up on describing something physical under the class of
intangible? * - Yes.
*So what about DateCreated, inLanguage, genre, creator, about, etc?  These
are the properties I would want to use at any level when describing
archives* - So you should.

These issues, often a point of early confusion for those new to using
Schema.org, come under the heading of Multi-Type Entities (MTEs) - Until
recently not fully recognised by Google’s testing tool, so historically not
well used.  A MTE is a Thing that is described as being of more than one
type.

Applying MTEs in practice for an item in an archive, the process would flow
something like this:

   - What is the item (separate from it being in an archive)  - a Book, an
   Article, a Painting, a Vehicle ?
   Choose the appropriate Schema Type and use that type’s properties
   to describe the item.

   - As the item is in an archive, also add the ArchivedItem Type, which
   then makes available some more properties to enable you to describe the
   archive related attributes of the item.
   Practically this is achieved in the various data serialisations thus:

    Microdata: <span itemscope itemtype=‘http://schema.org/Painting’> <link
itemprop=“additionalType” href="http://schema.org/ArchivedItem"/>
<link itemprop=“additionalType” href="http://schema.org/ArchivedItem"/>
RDFa: <body vocab=“http://schema.org” typeof='Painting ArchivedItem'>
JSONJD: “@type”: [“Painting”,”ArchivedItem”]


3. ArchiveCollection
<http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ArchiveCollection> is defined as
being a subtype of both CreativeWork and ArchivedItem making those
properties available


*It seems like you’re saying that archived item is a type, rather than a
‘thing’, *In terms of the Schema.org vocabulary, ArchivedItem is defined as
a Type.  However in practice is use could be described more appropriately
as a qualifying type.  I would expect it to be unlikely to be used in
isolation.  Most ArchivedItems will also be a type of thing in its own
right - a Book, Document, Product, etc.
You would use it to apply archived-ness to the description of items in an
archive.


Hopefully the above some of the thoughts you share in the rest of the email.

I understand that this [Schema.org] approach is a little confusing when
first encountered, especially when starting at a result [proposal], and
working backwards to first principles.  Normally when engaged to help
projects with Schema.org understanding and application, I start at the
beginning.  ;-)

~Richard.

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

On 15 February 2017 at 14:54, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I’m still not clear on the proposal.
>
> 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 Thursday, 16 February 2017 10:42:02 UTC

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