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

Re: Purpose and Extent

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:09:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz75oxT3Mn5_BGcvnLijS4XpgfsrjR8NSKsca=yQn8Y_9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Cc: "Roke, Elizabeth Russey" <erussey@emory.edu>, Jane Stevenson <jane.stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>, public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
I wouldn’t be apposed to proposing a property that takes QuantitativeValue
as an expected type to fit this requirement, if we could come up
with some agreed guidelines and examples of how it would be used.

There has been much discussion in Schema.org around UN/CEFACT beyond its
mention in QuantitativeValue description - the world of IoT are very
focused on that too.  If we could leverage that interest to help our
proposals all the better.

Do we have the consistency in archive data to take this approach?

I would expect to be challenged on a simple name of ‘extent’ for that
property as either it is too specific to archives/libraries or; its broader
understanding “the area covered by something” may cause confusion to wider
adopters of Schema to be thinking in a spatialCoverage direction.  So we
might need to be creative in naming, description and examples.

Maybe we could loop in the library requirements at the same time….  Just a
thought.

~Richard.



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

On 18 July 2017 at 08:45, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:

> I agree that the definition doesn’t really seem to fit archives and their
> content
>
> Doing a bit more looking around, perhaps a better starting point is
> http://schema.org/QuantitativeValue. This is a generic Type allowing you
> to specify a value (amount), and either unitCode or unitText
> If you look further down the page you can see all the properties currently
> in schema.org that can be expressed as a QuantitativeValue. These include:
>
> height
> width
> depth
> weight
>
> So just thinking out loud here - a couple of options:
>
> 1. Add new properties that represent the types of measure we want to
> express (length, volume) - and let these take a QuantitativeValue
> So you’d get something like:
> schema:volume
>         schema:QuantitativeValue
>                 schema:unitText “boxes”
>                 schema:value “3”
>
> schema:length
>         schema:QuantitativeValue
>                 schema:unitCode “LF”
>                 schema:value “12”
>
> 2. Add a single new property of “extent” (or similar) which takes a
> QuantitativeValue
> schema:extent
>         schema:QuantitativeValue
>                 schema:unitText “boxes”
>                 schema:value “3”
>
> schema:extent
>         schema:QuantitativeValue
>                 schema:unitCode “LF”
>                 schema:value “12”
>
> Or we could implement both of course with ‘extent’ being a catchall
>
> 1. appeals as it avoids the library/archive use of ‘extent’ which is very
> specific and different to what might be generally understood. On the
> downside 1 requires us to agree on the set of measurements we need - and
> some may not be obvious (e..g if you are measuring something in ‘sheets’ is
> it a volume? or what?)
>
> Owen
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2017 17:09:43 UTC

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