- From: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:29:25 +0000
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- CC: "owen@ostephens.com" <owen@ostephens.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Yes, I like ArchiveComponent. It is reasonably user friendly too. That means, between at least the three of us….which I admit is not a wide group of people to represent archives….we seem to agree that ArchiveComponent might be the best term for whatever group of materials you are describing. This might work well for US colleagues and others who use EAD, as it is used to describe any unit of description (unit of archive). cheers Jane > On 17 Jul 2017, at 12:16, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote: > > 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. > >
Received on Monday, 17 July 2017 11:29:59 UTC