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

Re: Purpose and Extent

From: Jane Stevenson <Jane.Stevenson@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:19:48 +0000
To: "owen@ostephens.com" <owen@ostephens.com>
CC: public-architypes <public-architypes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9BDA555E-0AA6-440E-8075-02B94BBB5C79@jisc.ac.uk>
Hi Owen,

This works very well from our point of view, representing the UK archives that we do. 

As you’ll be aware, we would likely use the string, as very few archives catalogue in a structured way that shows unit and number. So having both options is ideal. 

>> The thing that I’m unhappy about in terms of modelling is that where we have multiple parts to the extent statement we end up with two properties on the object, which I think leaves the extent statement ambiguous. So for example for an extent statement of "1 folder; 5 design drawings” leads to two separate extent statements in the current proposal (unless you take the easy way out and jut dump it all in a single string).

Yes, I take your point. But its not really relevant for us, as we’d ‘take the easy way out’!  But this is due to not being able to analyse accurately the data we have, and the inconsistencies within each repository. 

cheers, 
Jane.




> On 21 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
> 
> Not wishing to lose momentum (although I know it’s difficult to find the time to look at these things) I wonder if anyone has comments on this proposal?
> 
> Owen
> 
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com

> Email: owen@ostephens.com
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
> 
>> On 19 Jul 2017, at 14:38, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve fleshed out the Extent proposal with a bit more detail now.
>> 
>> The thing that I’m unhappy about in terms of modelling is that where we have multiple parts to the extent statement we end up with two properties on the object, which I think leaves the extent statement ambiguous. So for example for an extent statement of "1 folder; 5 design drawings” leads to two separate extent statements in the current proposal (unless you take the easy way out and jut dump it all in a single string).
>> 
>> Comments and additions to https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Extent_proposal very welcome
>> 
>> 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

>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 

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, 31 July 2017 10:20:16 UTC

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