new properties for Things? DigitalEntity and MaterialEntity #3431
Comments
|
Just some random ideas: Can you just model this with CreativeWork and MediaObject? {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "MediaObject",
"name": "Quarx Model"
"description": "3DModel for Quarx",
"isBasedOn": {
"@type": "Thing",
"name": "Quarx",
"description": "Lateral Quarx of an Vepsernal Fnurbl",
}
}Setting aside the discussion of the type of the Quarx for the time-being. |
|
That would work for our digital media I think but a digital specimen is not really a creative work and treating them as such may spark unwanted discussions about data ownership and copyrights although we aim to have them always CC-0 or CC-By licensed. And a sample of nature (the specimen) is certainly not a creative work but a material entity. So if these are catalogued and the catalogue record is published online how to model these records? We cold perhaps just give them a "@type": "Thing"? That would be very generic though. |
|
This issue is being nudged due to inactivity. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
no-issue-activity
|
What would be the problem with marking it as Thing? Do you need any properties? |
|
for the iSamples project, I've drafted a proposal for representing 'material samples' typed as 'Thing' with schema.org. see https://github.com/isamplesorg/metadata/tree/main/notes/schemaOrg |
|
Wouter,
While the samples you mention may not be "creative works" in the common
sense, it does not mean that they do not have rights associated with them.
For example, Human DNA may have rights associated with it in some legal
jurisdictions. These rights are not found in the copyright law, but rather
in other sectors of law. These rights would transcend the material/digital
contexts. CC-0 (and the creative commons licenses) only deals with
copyrights, not other rights. Also some plants have been given patents so
their samples and DNA would have legal considerations as well. The basis
for patent application for a plant specimen does in fact imply that it is a
creative work.
FYI: In archival terminology the material/digital relationship is called
"surrogate". So a scanned image of a photo is called a "digital surrogate"
or "surrogate of the 'original'".
…On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 7:10 PM Stephen Richard ***@***.***> wrote:
for the iSamples project, I've drafted a proposal for representing
'material samples' typed as 'Thing' with schema.org. see
https://github.com/isamplesorg/metadata/tree/main/notes/schemaOrg
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3431 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAJ2JS3EIUPVHFBQPJXAH3ZUXURRAVCNFSM6AAAAABBJ3EKQWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRXGAZTIMBUHE>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
github-actions
bot
removed
the
no-issue-activity
Natural history museums preserve material objects (specimens) from nature. These are digitally catalogued and further digitized for science. The catalogued items on the internet we would like to make better findable using schema.org. I am new on this platform so forgive my ignorance but I struggle to find the right property for these objects. Specimens are things but not products and not creative works either. The same applies to material samples for e.g. DNA analysis.
Maybe a new property should be added to schema.org like MaterialEntity?
In our biodiversity informatics domain we are now also starting to create new digital objects as digital twins for these material objects. These have PIDs and contain all digital information known about the physical object. We call these Digital Specimens. These could perhaps be seen as CreativeWork but are rather just a collection of facts and measurements, there is no creativity involved. They could perhaps be seen as Dataset under CreativeWork but are rather structured data objects (similar to a database record) where a collection of such objects would usually be treated as a dataset.
To support digital twins (e.g. to run simulations) such as our digital specimens but also digital twins used in industry, maybe another new property should be added as well, which could be DigitalEntity.
A possible issue with that may be that a digital media could both be a digital entity and a creative work. If it is the result of a scanning device we do not see it as creative work (at least not in our domain), but if it is a digital photo created by a professional photographer it would be a creative work. That would leave the question though which property to use for a digital media file created by e.g. a scanning device that is published online. Or should Intangible be used for digital twins and digital media that are not creative works?
Note that we plan to use DOIs as PIDs for our digital specimens and this is relevant for the DOI Foundation too, which is currently revising their schema and could base their referentType on the schema.org properties for Thing. They already have the issue that they now need to support DOIs for both physical and digital entities.
Note also that GBIF, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility which deals with occurrences, is working on a new data model/standard that includes digital and material entities and connects these with taxon.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: