Re: inital model and extent model

Hi Alec,

Thank you for investing the time to discuss this within the National
Archives and communicating your comments with the group.

I comment on these in line below.


On 9 November 2017 at 09:27, Mulinder, Alec <
Alec.Mulinder@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

> Hello
>
> We’ve had some initial discussions at The National Archives and have the
> following feedback
>
>
>
> ·         Our preference is for model 2: primarily as this stops
> prolonging confusion over the use of terms like archive item, it would
> still work across paper and born digital records, and feels like we are
> starting with a clean slate
>
> Based upon consensus within the group, which agrees with your preference,
the 2nd option has been formed into a proposal that was recently submitted
to the Schema.org community.  The details can be seen in the relevant
Github request: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/1784


> ·         Is the intention is to replace EAD for data exchange and online
> publishing, or is it to provide a ‘schema light’ to aid discoverability,
> but not replace any existing domain specific schema?
>
No, the intention of the proposals is not to replace internal, to the
archives community, standards.  Schema.org is seen as an additional feature
to aid discovery.  This reflects similar approached in other sectors,
libraries for example where the bibliography extension to Schema.org helps
with discovery and discoverability and is very unlikely to replace Marc or
Bibframe.

> ·         If the intention (or likely knock-on effect) is to ultimately
> replace EAD then there is need for a lot more properties (e.g. in Archive
> Component type).
>

See above

> ·         There is a need to think about the impact on EAD (a
> hierarchical encoding schema) and about how archives networks could produce
> schema.org outputs from their current systems.
>

Adoption of Schema.org will require some thought as to how internal
structures / model is mapped to Schema.org for external consumption often
via data embedded in web descriptions.

> ·         How does this work relates to Records In Context (RIC)? RIC is
> only a conceptual model at the moment but it is going to have an ontology
> and it would be useful to know if there is any thought to make these shared
> terms. This will probably depend on the purpose of the schema.org
> extension.
>
No specific discussion has been focused on the relationship with RIC.  It
may be useful for both groups to at least understand each others focus and
direction.

> ·         Archives should not be considered a sub-type of local business.
> Museum is treated as a subtype of CivicStructure, which might be a better
> alternative..
>

Across the broad scope of Schema.org in all areas
commercial/non-commercial/governmental this kind of comment is not
unusual.  One should not put too much semantic emphasis on the naming of
the super types of a particular type.  Sub-typing, in Schema.org, is more a
way of inheriting and appropriate and useful set of properties than
applying ontological concepts and constraints.  For example another
sub-type of LocalBusiness <http://schema.org/LocalBusiness> is Library
<http://schema.org/Library>.

> ·         Our first impression is that new properties would have to be
> added to the extension for us to map our wealth of data.
>

It would be good to discuss with you examples where feel Schema.org does
not have the types/properties to describe, for discovery, items in your
data.

>
>
It has been really interesting following the discussion and there is
> interest at The National Archives in participating further in designing an
> archival extension, but this partly depends upon its purpose. The more
> generic higher level it is the less engagement from The National Archives
> is required, but if the intention is to replace EAD and to expand the
> number of properties in the Schema.org archival extension, then The
> National Archives would be interested in discussing how it could involve
> itself more in the design process.
>


Glad you have found it interesting and hopefully you will be able to
continue to engage with our work.

Regards,
    Richard.