search

LD4P / arm

BIBFRAME extension ontologies for modeling bibliographic metadata in the art and rare materials domains.
https://ld4p.github.io/arm/
16 stars 10 forks source link

Create SHACL for Physical Condition Pattern #40

Closed sfolsom closed 6 years ago

sfolsom commented 6 years ago

Requires a decision on Activity vs. Contribution. https://github.com/LD4P/ArtFrame-RareMat/blob/develop/modeling_recommendations/physical_condition.md

jak473 commented 6 years ago

Decision: Activity (relevant subclassing) where we've done explicit modeling in ARM... Contribution (relevant bf:role) where we have not done modeling. Not ideal and certainly creates two patterns but limits additional modeling work and aligns further with BIBFRAME than pulling in a lot more of bibliotek-o.

melanieWacker commented 6 years ago

Jason, can you give examples as to where sticking with the activities model (for the time being) would cause more modeling?

jak473 commented 6 years ago

I believe that this was the decision in an email thread with us + others last week (use contributions where we do not have an ARM Activity subclass defined). I'd need to cross-reference what is and is not in bibliotek-o... but anything not in ARM would require us to pull in bib:Activity subclasses; if/when those do not exist, we'd need to create them. "Modeling" is a bit strong of a word in that it is lightweight... but we would need define any not-yet-defined subclasses. I realize I did not provide an example; it'll take me a while to go and cross-reference what is in bibliotek-o and what we're defining in the application profile(s).

jak473 commented 6 years ago

This said, another concern is that adding these terms to ARM would demand that RBMS/ARLIS would need to manage terms only peripherally related to art and rare materials (or deprecate them) if they decide to maintain the ontology extension.

rjyounes commented 6 years ago

@jak473 Can you give a pointer to that decision, because I don't recall every expressing agreement to the hybrid approach. If we are going to use contributions then I prefer to go all the way in order to present a consistent model. All it would take is to find or create a few terms that are not in the marc relators.

@melanieWacker I think that sticking with the Activities model would not cause additional modeling, but rather the reverse. However, I can see the advantages of going with the Contribution model now that LC has confirmed that they can be used with any subject type, so I can go along with that, since consistency, as stated above, is more of a concern to me.

sfolsom commented 6 years ago

Based on a decision made by Jason and Melanie, we're back to using Activities. I'll self-assign and add this to in-progress status.

rjyounes commented 6 years ago

High priority is JUST physical condition