Re: Alt Proposal discussions: ArchiveProperties vs ArchiveUnit

*ArchiveElement*  ?

~Richard

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

On 17 July 2017 at 10:48, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:

> 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> 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?
>>
>>
>