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

Re: Alt Proposal discussions: ArchiveProperties vs ArchiveUnit

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:35:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz5Rf9RH-sX6JGjFvkji_a=rUMRD32aEXctqtNp8Q00Xgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: "owen@ostephens.com" <owen@ostephens.com>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Looking for comments from the wider community!


   1. Is ArchiveComponent a good, or least bad, name for the Type in Owen’s
   proposal
   <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Alternative_1_model_proposal>?
(I
   presume its going to change in the diagram too)
   2. How does it compare with my initial proposal
   <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Initial_model_proposal>
   and which are we more happy with?

~Richard.


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

On 17 July 2017 at 12:29, Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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 11:36:06 UTC

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