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

Re: Level property

From: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:20:07 +0000
To: "owen@ostephens.com" <owen@ostephens.com>
CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Message-ID: <437D13CA-FC67-4400-93CF-DADAEB5447B4@jisc.ac.uk>
Personally, I don’t think it would add much. But as we do seem to be caught up on the importance of describing a physical thing (an item) I thought it was a feasible option. 

On the Hub we normalise level values on ingest….probably 80% of values are already in this controlled list (although case varies) but archivists are also fond of sub sub and sub sub sub levels, which adds to inconsistency. And then ‘otherlevel’ allows you to specify….whatever you want.  This is in EAD obviously, and many repositories don’t think in terms of EAD at all, but it does tend to reflect the reality of cataloguing - I’ve seen it all reflected in systems like Calm and AdLib as well. EAD just adds tags to what is already there. 

It is only really Fonds that carries meaning….but I have to say that it’s sometimes used incorrectly, so I guess I am rather shooting down this idea myself! It was only really because it gives the option -  and of course, individual repositories might want to provide this information and they might have good consistent levels to apply. 

I would not vote for adding it, but if others on the list are keen to have a means to represent the level being described, I assume it would be easy to add. 


> On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:07, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
> Jane has raised the question of adding an ‘level’ property which is used to indicate (where known) the archive level of an Archive Unit is specified.
> (I suspect it would probably need to be called something other than ‘level’, but I think the question of the usefulness of the property is really the question we need to tackle first)
> Jane’s example:
>> #An item in an archive (Note the definition of two types (schema:AudioObject, schema:ArchiveProperties).
>> <https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8/3> a schema:AudioObject, schema:ArchiveProperties ;
>>   schema:accessConditions "Please check with the Theatre and Performance enquiry team regarding access arrangements before making an appointment to listen to this item." ;
>>   schema:dateCreated "1971-1972"^^schema:Date ;
>>   schema:description "Sound recording of the first radio broadcast of Lines from My Grandfather's Forehead by Ronnie Barker and others. Duration: max 90 mins." ;
>>   schema:about “Comedy”;
>>   schema:duration "PT90M" ;
>>   schema:inLanguage "EN" ;
>>   schema:isPartOf "https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8" ;
>>   schema:location "https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/locations/eae30daa-1bf9-33d9-bf1c-7aeb220d2e76" ;
>>   schema:name "Sound Recording of Lines from My Grandafther's Forehead (Radio)" ;
>>   schema:playerType "Audio Cassette" ;
>>   schema:identifier "GB 71 THM/407/8/3” 
>>   schema:level “item”
> What are the potential values of ‘level’ in this context? From EAD docs I can see:
> 	• collection
> 	• fonds
> 	• class
> 	• recordgrp
> 	• series
> 	• subfonds
> 	• subgrp
> 	• subseries
> 	• file
> 	• item
> and also the use of any other term in the ‘otherlevel’ attribute. Are there other ‘levels’ here
> I don’t see a problem in adding a property for level, however, some of these (collection, file, item at least) don’t seem to do more than you could already do with native SDO types - if you know it is a collection, why not say so by making it a schema:Collection?
> The other levels from EAD are more specific I think - in particular I know Fond carries with it some additional information about the particular set of items. Possibly the others do too? In this case my instinct would be to unbundle the semantics a bit - if a Fond is really a Collection of Items with shared properties (e.g. Provenance) then I’m inclined to think it is better to say so. Of course - this may take us back to Jane’s other question - what is the point of such modelling here? For the main schema.org use case (discovery) I think (for example) shared provenance is of more interest than ‘level’.
> So - my initial reaction is that ‘level’ is not so useful *BUT* it would be straightforward to add to either of the proposals on the wiki at the moment
> Owen

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 Monday, 17 July 2017 10:20:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:29:00 UTC