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

Re: Purpose and Extent

From: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:44:48 +0100
Message-Id: <EEDE64AD-687B-4CAE-B4AD-18892DB01994@ostephens.com>
Cc: "Roke, Elizabeth Russey" <erussey@emory.edu>, Jane Stevenson <jane.stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
To: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
OK I’ve setup a page on the wiki to start to sketch out a potential Property for this

At the moment I’ve only had a chance to drop in some basic definitions and the basic idea of the Property using the (placeholder) name of ‘materialExtent’ for the moment.
Feel free to dive in and add examples, more definitions, and flesh out the proposal more fully. I hope to have another look at this later today

https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Extent_proposal


Owen
 
Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

> On 18 Jul 2017, at 18:09, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <http://dataliberate.com/>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
> Twitter: @rjw
> 
> On 18 July 2017 at 08:45, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com <mailto: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 <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 <http://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 Wednesday, 19 July 2017 08:45:22 UTC

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