Re: Alt Proposal discussions: ArchiveProperties vs ArchiveUnit

Thanks Richard,

> On 17 Jul 2017, at 10:43, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
> 
> From my point of view the type name of ArchiveProperties is more descriptive of the vocabulary constructs it represents (for the benefit of archivists applying it) than the type of Thing It is being applied to (which will help the non archivists discover what is being described).
The thing (sorry) I struggle with here is that we are talking about an Intangible - which breaks the cognitive idea of it being a physical ‘Thing’ for me.
That said I can see the argument that most consumers of the information won’t care about this :)

>  ArchiveUnit is closer to the intention I believe, also in this alternative model ArchiveItem could also be a possibility.
ArchiveUnit feels slightly more jargon-y
Both, in my opinion, suffer slightly from suggesting we are talking about a specific item rather than ‘any thing or set of things in an archive’

But, although you might not guess from my willingess to argue the toss over this, I’m not that hungup on the naming here - I think all have pros and cons and I can see any of them working OK.

Owen


> 
> ~Richard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 July 2017 at 10:34, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>> wrote:
> So my only argument for ‘ArchiveProperties’ over ‘ArchiveUnit’ in this case is that it might (but maybe not) be clearer about the fact that the type is an intangible. However, I’m happy with either, and I’ve added the suggestion that ‘ArchiveUnit’ could be used instead of ArchiveProperties to the proposal.
> 
> Anyone else have views as to whether one is better than the other?
>