Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Archives and their collections #1758

Closed
RichardWallis opened this Issue Sep 28, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@RichardWallis
Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 28, 2017

The Schema Architypes W3C Community Group have been working on a proposal for enhancements to Schema.org to enable the description of Archives and their collections/contents. Which I describe below for consideration.

It consists of two new types:

  • Archive: Institution with archival holdings. An Archive, or Archives, is an organization which keeps and preserves archival material and potentially makes it accessible to the public.
  • ArchiveComponent: An intangible type to be applied to any archive content, carrying with it a set of properties required to describe archival items and collections.

and three new properties:

plus the broadening of the range of four existing properties (hasPart, isPartOf, itemCondition, location).

A test version of the proposal is operating here: http://archive.sdo-archive.appspot.com/ The example assumes an 'archive' extension, however the proposal will be for an introduction into 'pending' and thence into the core.

Archive is a subtype of LocalBusiness, similar to Library. It has a single new property archiveHeld for linking to relevant archived items.

ArchiveComponent is the main type in the proposal. The model behind this proposal separates out the question of ‘what’ something is, from the fact it is in an archive and therefore has a set of archive specific properties related to it.
Making use of Schema's Multi Type Entity (MTE) capabilities, ArchiveComponent is designed to be used with one or more other types. Thus the 'what' of a thing is left to existing standard SDO types (e.g. Collection, CreativeWork, etc.).

This approach is used both for individual items in a collection, and the collections themselves (combining Collection with ArchiveComponent).

Examples are available on both the Archive & ArchiveComponent pages. For more details (model, background, etc.) see the proposal Wiki page.

A JSON-LD example of a sound recording held in an archive:

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "http://schema.org",
  "@id": "https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8/3",
  "@type": ["AudioObject","ArchiveComponent"],
  "identifier": "GB 71 THM/407/8/3",
  "name": "Sound Recording of Lines from My Grandafther's Forehead (Radio)",
  "about": "Comedy",
  "description": "Sound recording of the first radio broadcast of Lines from My Grandfather's Forehead by Ronnie Barker and others. Duration: max 90 mins.",
  "inLanguage": "EN",
  "dateCreated": "1971-1972",
  "duration": "PT90M",
  "playerType": "Audio Cassette",
  "accessConditions": "Please check with the Theatre and Performance enquiry team regarding access arrangements before making an appointment to listen to this item.",
  "location": "https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/locations/eae30daa-1bf9-33d9-bf1c-7aeb220d2e76",
  "isPartOf": "https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb71-thm/407/thm/407/8"
}
</script>
@rvguha

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 28, 2017

RichardWallis pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 29, 2017

Implement Issues #1758 & #1759:
New Types: Archive, ArchiveComponent
New Properties: accessConditions, archiveHeld, holdingArchive, collectionSize, materialExtent

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 13, 2019

Archives and extent - Introduce 'pending' types, properties & examples (
#1784)

* Implement Issues #1758 & #1759:
New Types: Archive, ArchiveComponent
New Properties: accessConditions, archiveHeld, holdingArchive, collectionSize, materialExtent

* Changed Arvchive to ArchiveOrganization and dropped accessConditions.
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 19, 2019

Just checking over the details, I see we have ArchiveComponent as Intangible, ... and yet the PR changes core properties to attach some rather tangible attributes. Most awkwardly: "itemCondition", but also "location"; and it is awkward also making a special case exception for hasPart/isPartOf.

Can we make this a CreativeWork? That type is pretty inclusive already.

For now I think best to comment out the property changes:

<!--
<div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/hasPart">
	<span class="h" property="rdfs:label">hasPart</span>
	<span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domainIncludes" href="http://schema.org/ArchiveComponent">ArchiveComponent</a></span>
	<span>Range: <a property="http://schema.org/rangeIncludes" href="http://schema.org/ArchiveComponent">ArchiveComponent</a></span>
</div>

<div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/isPartOf">
	<span class="h" property="rdfs:label">isPartOf</span>
	<span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domainIncludes" href="http://schema.org/ArchiveComponent">ArchiveComponent</a></span>
	<span>Range: <a property="http://schema.org/rangeIncludes" href="http://schema.org/ArchiveComponent">ArchiveComponent</a></span>
</div>


<div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/location">
	<span class="h" property="rdfs:label">location</span>
	<span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domainIncludes" href="http://schema.org/ArchiveComponent">ArchiveComponent</a></span>
</div>


<div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/itemCondition">
	<span class="h" property="rdfs:label">itemCondition</span>
	<span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domainIncludes" href="http://schema.org/ArchiveComponent">ArchiveComponent</a></span>
</div>
-->
@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Mar 19, 2019

@danbri There was discussion at the time the proposal was drafted as to if ArchiveComponent should be a CreativeWork or an Intangible subtype. The reason for making it an Intangible was that not all things in an archive collection are creative works (examples of planes and boxes of toys come to mind). However, placing something into an archive collection could be potentially considered as a creative act in itself.

In the light of this we could make ArchiveComponent a subtype of CreativeWork as you suggest, without too much controversy.

Fundamental to the definition of an ArchiveComponent are the hasPart & isPartOf properties, as the collection an item is part of is a defining factor of its description. These would be inherited from CreativeWork if we went that way.

Important to the definition are the ability to identify the condition of an item and its location.

The nearest match inherited from CreativeWork for location is contentLocation but this is more about what is described/depicted by the CreativeWork, not where it is located. My suggestion here would be to create an itemLocation property, as a sub-property of location, with a domain of ArchiveComponent, or potentially CreativeWork.

itemCondition is a little more difficult, as its use in the proposal does stretch its definition, and the OfferItemCondition enumeration it expects, somewhat. An alternative property name and domain does not immediately leap to mind.

To summarise what I am suggesting:

  • Define ArchiveComponent as a subtype of CreativeWork.
  • Drop, as you have, expansion of domain for properties (hasPart, isPartOf, location, itemCondition)
  • Define a new property itemLocation, as a sub-property of location, with a domain of ArchiveComponent ,or possibly CreativeWork.
  • Hold over to future discussion a replacement for the proposed expanded use of itemCondition
  • Adjust the supplied examples to reflect these choices.
@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Apr 10, 2019

Implemented in release 3.5

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.