Closed jeannekitchens closed 1 year ago
I would suggest adding this to all of the pathway component subclasses, as they all currently have ceterms:identifier
Proposal:
Add:
Subject: ceterms:codedNotation Predicate: schema:domainIncludes Object: ceterms:CourseComponent ceterms:JobComponent ceterms:CompetencyComponent ceterms:WorkExperienceComponent ceterms:BasicComponent
:( I don't like that we are using pathway components as if they were the thing for which they are a proxy just because tools don't support the link between to two.
To be clear about the problem with this approach: by definition ceterms:codedNotation uniquely identifies a resource. A CourseComponent is not the same as the Course it represents so you cannot use the same codedNotation to uniquely identify both of them. So it is OK to put these classes in the domain of codedNotation so long as they get a different identifier to the things they represent. I don't believe that will happen.
Better would be to have a new property proxyCodedNotation
.
Better still would be to use proxyFor->(Course|Job...)-codedNotation
We could just pull the codedNotation from the underlying resource and display it (we should probably do that with almost all of the other pathway component fields and leave the component classes with very few properties, technically). Things that aren't published could be represented with bnodes for which the pathway component is a proxy in order to still have a place in the data to put the codedNotation.
Not supporting this currently is an issue limiting functionality users need to be able to find competencies by their coded notation
ceasn:codedNotation is one of the fields that the search API will look at. Is the problem really just that the UI doesn't display the competency's coded notation? We can fix that without a schema change.
and and they need to publish the related component in a pathway with that coded notation.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this could be pulled from the competency.
I recommend we fix this via the UI, a schema change seems unnecessary. @mparsons-ce @sedula27 What do you think?
@siuc-nate @philbarker is this resolved by mapping codedNotation to identifier? ? Can this be closed?
I think that is the plan, yes.
We need to add ceterms:codedNotation (https://credreg.net/ctdlasn/terms#codedNotation) t0 https://credreg.net/ctdl/terms#CompetencyComponent.
Not supporting this currently is an issue limiting functionality users need to be able to find competencies by their coded notation and and they need to publish the related component in a pathway with that coded notation.