Re: Alt Proposal discussions: ArchiveProperties vs ArchiveUnit

I tend to agree.

I don’t think we should be putting much semantic emphasis on the fact that
its super type is *Intangible. * That mostly is the consequence of
Schema.org practice not wanting the *Thing* type to have lots of sub-types.
The Intangible branch of the vocabulary model has emerged therefore as the
place to put Types that have no obvious super type.

~Richard.



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

On 17 July 2017 at 12:09, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:

> Out of these I like ArchiveComponent best - it really doesn’t imply
> anything about the nature of the the thing, and it works (for me) as the
> concept of an ‘Intangible’
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:11, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> I agree - it probably doesn't matter too much. I suppose the implication
> of a ‘thing’ doesn’t tally with intangible exactly but then it does seem
> more user-friendly. Otherwise, it feels as if i’m describing a collection
> of materials as an ‘ArchiveProperties'.
>
> The options I can think of are:
>
> ArchiveProperties
> ArchiveUnit
> ArchiveEntity
> ArchiveComponent
> ArchiveDescription
>
> Actually ‘unit’ is more ISAD(G), which I suppose is more global,  and
> component is more EAD speak.  ArchiveDescription could get confusing….And
> although on the Hub team we talk about entities, we usually have to explain
> what we mean by that term. Still, one way or another this will require a
> bit of thought from those implementing it.
>
> cheers
> Jane
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Jul 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?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>