Re: Level property

I was about to share my opinion that I felt a level property would be of
little aid to discovery.  Now Owen has listed some potential values, I am
even more sure.

I know Fond carries with it some additional information about the
particular set of items.


In both proposals under consideration, a Fond would be considered as an
individual collection or a sub-collection (isPartOf) a collection of
collections.

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

On 17 July 2017 at 11:20, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>
> cheers
> Jane
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>